natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his requests for legal clarification. cation.
Ombudsman leidis, et on olemas piisav alus uurimise alustamiseks, ning palus oma esimeses komisjonile saadetud kirjas otsest vastust küsimusele, kas komisjon oleks nõus tema e epanekuga sõnastada vahekohtu kokkuleppe keskne mõte teisiti.
In its opinion, the Commission submi4 ed that, on the basis of the complainant’s submissions, it had been in constant contact with the competent Austrian authorities and had given them indications as to the correct interpretation of Community law.
Komisjon pakkus oma arvamuses välja vahekohtu kokkuleppe sõnastuse, mis ombudsmani e epanekule toetudes vastas ka komisjoni enda seisukohale vaidlusaluses küsimuses. Kaebuse esitaja nõustus nimetatud e epanekuga ning palus ombudsmanil juhtum lõpetada.
In parallel, it had amended EU rules on horse passports.
Ombudsman pidas seega juhtumi lahendatuks komisjoni poolt.
As regards the general question of the application of Community law concerning organisations that maintain stud-books, which had already been the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice, it had received an infringement complaint, in the framework of which it had again contacted the Austrian authorities.
Pärast juhtumi lõpetamist teatas kaebuse esitaja ombudsmanile, et vahekohtunikud olid teinud otsuse tema kasuks.
In addition, it was investigating a new complaint from the complainant, in which he had raised suspicions of fraud in relation to the use of horse passports in Vorarlberg.
Ta tänas ombudsmani tõhusa sekkumise eest, märkides, et see võimaldas vahekohtumenetluse õiglast kulgu.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s and the complainant’s submissions, the Ombudsman asked the Commission for more information on the di� erent procedures in the framework of which it had been or was still dealing with the issues raised by the complainant.
Komisjon märkis oma arvamuses, et ta otsustas ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuse tõ u veelkord kokku kutsuda institutsioonidevahelise hindamiskomisjoni, et pakkumine uuesti läbi vaadata ja hoida ära mis tahes võimalikku ebaõiglast kohtlemist.
Thereupon, the Commission gave a detailed overview of two complaint procedures related to the complainant’s concerns, both of which were still under investigation.
Hindamiskomisjon, keda abistasid lisaks kaks bulgaaria keele spetsialisti, otsustas nõustuda kaebuse esitaja kahe väitega. Seega vähendati pakkumise vigade lõpparv viiele, et lülitada pakkumine edasisse valikumenetlusse.
It stated that most of the problems had been resolved.
Lõpuks võeti pakkumine vastu kvaliteedihindega 12/20.
All problems that had not been resolved and that were related to Community law were still being investigated.
Veel teatas komisjon ombudsmanile, et kaebuse esitajale pakuti raamlepingut.
In his observations and further contacts with the Ombudsman’s services, the complainant reported that certain positive results had been achieved, particularly in relation to the horse passports.
Kaebuse esitaja teatas ombudsmani teenistustele, et ta on täielikult rahul sellega, kuidas komisjon tema probleemi lahendas.
He added that he was entirely satisfied with the way his complaint had been handled at the EU level, both by the Commission and by the Ombudsman, and stated that he was optimistic that the Commission’s continued activity would lead to the resolution of the remaining problems.
Ta märkis, et talle avaldas muljet küsimuse lahendamise kiirus, ning tänas ombudsmani sekkumise eest.
The Ombudsman welcomed the detailed explanations the Commission had provided in the framework of his inquiry and expressed his confidence that it would do its best in order to contribute to the resolution of the remaining problems.
Ombudsman tervitas asjaolu, et komisjon oli hakanud tegelema kaebuse esitaja tõstatatud probleemiga kohe ja selle lahendanud ning kaebuse esitajalt vabandust palunud.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission appeared to have taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Ombudsman järeldas, et komisjon on astunud samme probleemi lahendamiseks ning kaebuse esitaja on jäänud sellega rahule.
Dispute concerning formulation of an arbitration agreement
Mi enõuetekohane tegelemine lepingujärgse maksega
Summary of decision on complaint 1126/2006/SAB (Confidential) against the European Commission
Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 3495/2006/GG (konfidentsiaalne) asjus langetatud otsuse kokkuvõte
The complainant was working for a Commission Delegation in a third country, on the basis of an ALAT (Administrative and Technical Local Sta�) contract.
Kaebuse esitaja, Saksa ülikool, võ is osa Erasmuse programmi raames toimunud projektist.
In its opinion, the Commission proposed a wording for the arbitration agreement which, building upon the Ombudsman’s proposal, also met the Commission’s concerns in relation to the clear identification of the issue in dispute.
2002. aasta märtsis teatas TAO kaebuse esitajale, et kahte kuluartiklit, vastavalt 5 395 eurot ja 4 111 eurot, ei peeta abikõlblikuks.
The complainant accepted this final proposal and asked the Ombudsman to close the case.
TAO märkis, et toetuse lõppsumma on 33 327 eurot.
The Ombudsman, thus, considered that the Commission had se4 led the ma4 er.
Kaebuse esitaja oli 5 395 euro suuruse summa mahaarvamisega nõus ning tagastas nimetatud summa TAO-le.
A er the closure of the case, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the arbitrators had ruled in his favour.
Pärast kaebuse esitaja vastuväiteid nõustus komisjon siiski 4 111 euro suurust summat abikõlblikuks lugema.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his e cient intervention, noting that it had allowed the arbitration to proceed in a fair way.
Komisjon teatas kaebajale, et nõutud tagasimakse summaks on 3 202 eurot.
Wrongful rejection of a translation tender
Kaebuse esitaja arvates oli arvutuskäik vigane.
Summary of decision on complaint 2633/2006/WP against the European Commission
Samas oli komisjon jätnud arvestamata asjaolu, et kaebuse esitaja oli varasemalt tagasi maksnud 5 395 euro suuruse summa.
A translator living in Germany submi4 ed a bid in reply to an invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian, launched by the Commission. The bid was rejected because, according
2004. aasta märtsis teatas kaebuse esitaja komisjonile, et tema arvates on ilmnenud viga ning tegelikult võlgneb komisjon talle 2 193 euro suuruse summa (st vahe, mis tekkis komisjoni 3 202 euro suuruse nõude lahutamisel juba tagasimakstud 5 395 euro suurusest summast).
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 to the Commission, its linguistic quality had not a4 ained the required minimum mark of 5/10.
2004. aasta mais teatas komisjon kaebuse esitajale, et kuna 3 202 euro suurust summat ei ole tagasi makstud, siis tasaarveldatakse see summa teiste nõuete arvel, mida kaebuse esitaja on komisjoni vastu esitanud.
However, the complainant considered that most of the words and phrases that had been marked as incorrect in the Bulgarian text in question were in fact correct.
Kaebuse esitaja edasised püüded veenda komisjoni tehtud vea olemasolust osutusid ebaedukaks.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had wrongly rejected his bid.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuses põhimõ eliselt seda, et komisjon ei ole juhtumiga tegelenud nõuetekohaselt.
He claimed that the Commission should annul its decision to reject his bid and that it should admit it to the further selection procedure.
Kaebuse esitaja taotles komisjonilt 5 395 euro suuruse summa tagasimaksmist, lisaks veel intressi 44,47 eurot.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that, further to the complainant’s complaint to the Ombudsman, it had decided to convene the interinstitutional evaluation commi4 ee once again in order to reexamine the tender and to avoid any possible unfair treatment.
Komisjon osutas oma arvamuses, et pärast uurimise läbiviimist ja arvestades kaebuse esitaja esitatud tõendusmaterjali, kiirustas ta kaebuse esitajale tagasi maksma 5 395 euro suurust summat.
The evaluation commi4 ee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant’s arguments.
Komisjon märkis, et nimetatud summa oli tema arvelt debiteeritud 20. detsembril 2006. aastal.
The final number of errors contained in the bid had therefore been reduced to five, so that the tender had been admi4 ed to the rest of the selection procedure.
Komisjon soovis omal algatusel kaebuse esitajale ka intressi tagasi maksta.
The bid had finally been accepted with a quality mark of 12/20.
Kaebuse esitaja kinnitas oma tähelepanekutes, et asjakohane summa oli tagastatud täies ulatuses ning ta on juhtumi tulemustega rahul.
The Commission apologised to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Kaebuse esitaja tänas ombudsmani abi eest juhtumi lahendamisel.
The Commission furthermore informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been o � ered a framework contract.
Ombudsman väljendas rahulolu, et komisjon oli astunud samme juhtumi lahendamiseks ja et kaebuse esitaja oli sellega rahul.
The complainant told the Ombudsman’s services that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem.
Ombudsman rõhutas oma otsuses, et juhtumi eest vastutav komisjoni teenistus (Euroopa Komisjoni hariduse ja kultuuri peadirektoraat) oli selle juhtumi lahendamisel kiirelt tegutsenud.
He also stated that he was impressed by the short period of time it had taken to se4 le the ma4 er and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
Tuli välja, et põhiküsimus lahendati edukalt 20. detsembriks 2006, st vähem kui kahe nädala jooksul alates hetkest, kui kaebuse esitaja küsimus oli komisjonile edastatud.
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission had rapidly addressed and resolved the problem raised by the complainant and that it had apologised to him.
Seetõ u tunnustas ombudsman komisjoni tervikuna ja eriliselt selle hariduse ja kultuuri peadirektoraati juhtumi eeskujuliku lahendamise eest.
Failure properly to handle payment due under a contract
Praktikandi taotluse tagasilükkamine eelneva töökogemuse tõ u
Summary of decision on complaint 3495/2006/GG (Confidential) against the European Commission
Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 471/2007/VIK kohta langetatud otsuse kokkuvõte
The complainant, a German university, took part in a project under the Erasmus Programme.
Kaebuse esitaja, Portugali kodanik, taotles komisjoni juures praktikakohta.
The European Commission agreed to provide a maximum grant of EUR 45 156. An advance payment of EUR 40 640 was made.
Talle teatati, et tema taotlus on tagasi lükatud, sest ta ei vasta Euroopa Komisjoni ametlikku praktikakava reguleeriva eeskirja (edaspidi „eeskiri”) punktis 2.3 esitatud kõlblikkuskriteeriumidele.
At the end, the complainant’s total expenditure amounted to EUR 42 833. The handling of the project was entrusted to a Technical Assistance O ce (TAO).
Vastavalt eeskirja punktile 2.3 ei võta komisjon vastu taotlusi kandidaatidelt, kes on osalenud või osalevad üle kuue nädala kestval mis tahes praktikal Euroopa institutsioonis või asutuses.
In March 2002, the TAO informed the complainant that two items of expenditure amounting to EUR 5 395 and EUR 4 111 were not considered eligible.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuses, et tema taotluse tagasilükkamine oli ebaõiglane, sest tema vaheaegadega töötamine toimus parlamendi plenaaristungitel ning kestis kokku vaid kolm nädalat.
The TAO noted that the final grant amounted to EUR 33 327. The complainant accepted the deduction of the amount of EUR 5 395 and returned this amount to the TAO.
Ta leidis veel, et elektrooniline taotlusvorm ei võimaldanud sellise töökogemusega taotlejatel nimetada vaheaegadega töötamist ning et komisjon ei ole suutnud vormi asjakohaselt muuta.
However, following the complainant’s objections, the Commission accepted that the amount of EUR 4 111 was eligible.
Kaebuse esitaja lisas, et komisjon lükkas tagasi ka tema teise taotluse praktikakohale.
The Commission informed the complainant that the sum to be reimbursed thus amounted to EUR 3 202.
Kaebuse esitaja leidis, et tal peaks olema õigus esitada praktikakoha saamiseks uus taotlus ning et elektroonilist taotlusvormi tuleks muuta nii, et oleks võimalik nimetada vaheaegadega töö kogemust.
According to the complainant, this calculation was erroneous.
Komisjon selgitas oma arvamuses, et kaebuse esitaja taotlus lükati tagasi seetõ u, et plenaaristungitele eelnev ja järgnev töö pidi võtma istungitel viibitud ajast rohkem aega.
It appeared that the Commission had added the amount of EUR 4 111 to the amount of EUR 33 327 that had already been accepted and then deducted this sum (of EUR 37 438) from the advance of EUR 40 640 that had already been released.
Komisjon leidis ka, et kaebuse esitajal oli kolmekuulise kehtivusega teenistuskaart.
The Commission had thus omi4 ed to take into account the fact that the complainant had already returned an amount of EUR 5 395.
Samas juhtis komisjon tähelepanu asjaolule, et pärast kaebuse esitaja toimiku ning eelkõige kaebuse esitajaga koos töötanud parlamendiliikme avalduse läbivaatamist nõustus ta tunnistama kaebuse esitaja taotluse kõlblikuks ning esitama selle eelvalikukomisjonile praktikaperioodiks, mis algab 2007. aasta oktoobris.
In March 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that it considered that an error had occurred and that the Commission in e� ect owed it an amount of EUR 2 193 (i.e., the di� erence between the Commission’s claim over EUR 3 202 and the amount already reimbursed of EUR 5 395).
Elektroonilise taotlusvormi asjus selgitas komisjon, et taotlejad võivad vormil nimetada vähemalt ühekuulise asjakohase töökogemuse.
However, in May 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that, given that the sum of EUR 3 202 had not been reimbursed, it would be set o� against other claims that the complainant had against the Commission.
Komisjon leidis, et taotlusvormi väljatöötamise ajal ei peetud ühest kuust lühemat töökogemust asjakohaseks ning seetõ u ei peetud vajalikuks võimaldada selle nimetamist.
The complainant’s further e� orts to convince the Commission of the fact that a mistake had occurred were unsuccessful.
Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 1471/2007/(CC)/RT kohta langetatud otsuse kokkuvõte
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed to handle the ma4 er properly.
2004. aastal osales Prantsuse konsultatsioonifirma Euroopa Komisjoni toetatavas infoühiskonna tehnoloogia (Information Society Technologies, IST) programmis.
It claimed that the Commission should reimburse an amount of EUR 5 395, as well as interest amounting to EUR 44.47.
Projekt sisaldas Euroopa Liidu ja Hiina koostööd programmi „Digital Olympics“ raames, mille eesmärk oli tagada 2008. aasta Pekingi olümpiamängude edukas korraldamine, samuti pikaajalist koostööd Euroopa Liidu ja Hiina vahel infoühiskonna tehnoloogia valdkonnas.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that, a er having carried out an examination and in view of the evidence submi4 ed by the complainant, it had hastened to pay back the amount of EUR 5 395 to the complainant.
2005. aasta juulis taotles kaebuse esitaja esimest osa summas 90 379,00 eurot, mille komisjon seejärel välja maksis. Teises kuluaruandes taotles kaebuse esitaja ülejäänud summat, 88 036,10 eurot.
It went on to state that this payment had been debited to its account on 20 December 2006.
Aasta hiljem saatis komisjon lõpliku raamatupidamisaruande, mis ei sisaldanud nimetatud märkimisväärselt suurt summat.
The Commission also took the initiative of reimbursing the interest to the complainant.
Kuna komisjon ei suutnud taotletud summa maksmata jätmist piisavalt põhjendada, pöördus kaebuse esitaja ombudsmani poole.
In its observations, the complainant confirmed that the relevant amount had been reimbursed in its entirety and that it was satisfied with the outcome of this case.
Komisjon märkis oma arvamuses, et ta oli saavutanud ise kaebuse esitajaga kokkuleppe ja hüvitanud kaebuse esitajale ülejäänud summa, 88 036,10 eurot.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance in this case.
Kaebuse esitaja leidis, et on täielikult rahul sellega, kuidas tema probleem lahendati.
The Ombudsman was pleased to note that the Commission had taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Ombudsman lõpetas juhtumi, sest komisjon oli juhtumi lahendanud kaebuse esitajale sobival viisil.
It appeared that the main issue was e� ectively solved by 20 December 2006, i.e., less than two weeks a er the complaint had been forwarded to the Commission.
OMBUDSMANI SAAVUTATUD SÕBRALIKUD LAHENDID
Rejection of application for a traineeship due to prior work experience
Arenguprojekti raames makstud summa väidetav alusetu tagasinõudmine
Summary of decision on complaint 471/2007/VIK against the European Commission
Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 2577/2004/OV (konfidentsiaalne) kohta langetatud otsuse kokkuvõte
She was informed that her application had been rejected as she did not meet the eligibility criteria described in Point 2.3 of the Rules governing the o cial traineeship scheme of the Commission (“the Rules”).
Kaebuse esitaja, konsortsiumis osalev e evõte, oli komisjoni toetusprojektis „ELi toetus Liibanoni valitsuse rehabiliteerimiseks” rakendamisel töövõtjaks. Kaebuse esitaja allkirjastas 1999. aasta augustis lepingu projekti tellijaga, nimelt Liibanoni Vabariigi haldusreformi riigiministriga (ingl k Minister of State for Administrative Reform of the Republic of Lebanon, OMSAR).
In her complaint to the Ombudsman the complainant alleged that her application had been incorrectly rejected, as her non-consecutive work experience took place during Parliament’s plenary sessions and lasted a total of only three weeks.
Kaebuse esitajal esines mitmeid probleeme seoses sellega, kuidas komisjoni delegatsioon Liibanonis projekti menetles.
She further alleged that the format of the electronic application form did not allow applicants in her situation to declare non-consecutive work experience and that the Commission had failed to change the form accordingly.
Delegatsioon teatas 22. jaanuari 2003. aasta kirjas kaebuse esitajale, et konsortsiumi tugimeeskonna (siseministeeriumi tugi) päevarahade ja lennupiletite kulud kuuluvad 29 306,65 euro ulatuses tagasimaksmisele.
She claimed that she should be allowed to submit an application for a traineeship and that the electronic application form should be altered so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.
Kaebuse esitaja väitel põhjustas komisjonipoolne lepingu ebaõiglane menetlemine kaebuse esitajale olulist finantskahju ning kahjustas konsortsiumi mainet.
Furthermore, it had learned that the complainant had had a service card which was valid for three months.
2004. aasta augustis esitas kaebuse esitaja ombudsmanile kaebuse.
However, the Commission pointed out that, a er having reviewed her fi le again and in particular the declaration from the MEP with whom she had worked, it had proposed to accept the complainant’s application as eligible and to submit it to the pre-selection commi4 ees for the training period to begin in October 2007.
Ta väitis, et i) komisjoni otsus nõuda tagasi 29 306,65 euro suurune summa on põhjendamatu, ning et ii) komisjon oli otsustusvõimetu ja passiivne plaani suhtes, mille konsortsium esitas juunis ja detsembris 2002 ning veel kord märtsis 2003 projekti teise etapi kohta.
As regards the format of the electronic application form, the Commission clarified that the applicants were invited to declare in the form only relevant professional experience with a minimum duration of one month.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et iii) projekti teise etapi e epanek lükati lihtsalt tagasi, ilma et OMSARile või kaebuse esitajale oleks antud võimalus avaldada arvamust.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 professional experience of less than one month had not been considered relevant and thus did not need to be declared.
Oma arvamuses leidis komisjon esimese väite kohta, et tal oli piisav õiguslik alus nimetatud summa tagasimaksmise nõudmiseks.
The complainant confirmed that she was satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved the ma4 er.
Teise väite osas arvas komisjon, et viivitust ei põhjustanud üksnes tema, ning et ta ei olnud passiivne.
The Ombudsman closed the case as se4 led by the institution.
Komisjon lükkas tagasi kaebuse esitaja kolmanda väite, sedastades, et ta on kaebuse esitaja suhtes üles näidanud ülimat paindlikkust.
Summary of decision on complaint 1471/2007/(CC)/RT against the European Commission
Ombudsman leidis pärast toimiku põhjalikku analüüsi, et tuleb eristada kümnepäevast lähteperioodi (oktoobris 1999) ja lepingu ülejäänud perioodi.
In 2004, a French consulting firm participated in an Information Society Technologies (IST) programme supported by the European Commission.
Lähteperioodi osas järeldas ombudsman, et komisjoni otsus nõuda tagasi tugimeeskonna reisikulud ja päevarahad võib olla haldusomavoli juhtum.
The project included EU-Chinese cooperation on the Digital Olympics Programme, which aims at ensuring the successful organisation of the 2008 Be' ing Olympic Games, as well as long-term EU-Chinese cooperation in the field of IST.
Seetõ u tegi ombudsman kaebuse esitajale ja komisjonile sõbraliku lahendi e epaneku. Selles soovitas ta, et komisjon võiks üle vaadata oma otsuse 29 306,65 euro suuruse summa tagasinõudmise osas.
The Commission agreed to pay EUR 178 415.10 for the complainant’s participation in the project.
Kahe ülejäänud väite osas ombudsman haldusomavoli ei tuvastanud.
In July 2005, the complainant asked for the reimbursement of a first amount of EUR 90 379.00 which was paid by the Commission.
Komisjon märkis oma vastuses sõbraliku lahendi e epanekule, et juhtumi lahendamise huvides vaatas ta toimiku veel kord läbi ning nõustus ombudsmani e epanekuga.
In a second cost statement, the complainant applied for the remaining amount of EUR 88 036.10.
Komisjon selgitas, et kokku 3536,23 euro suurune summa päevarahade ja lennupiletite eest hinnati nüüd abikõlblikuks ning see arvatakse tagasinõutavast summast maha.
One year later, the Commission sent the final financial statement which did not include the outstanding sum.
Seetõ u vähendatakse kaebuse esitajalt tagasinõutav summa 25 770,42 eurole.
As the Commission did not provide a satisfactory explanation for its failure to pay the amount requested, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.
Kaebuse esitaja nõustus sõbraliku lahendiga ning tänas ombudsmani sekkumise eest.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it had reached agreement with the complainant in direct contacts and had reimbursed the complainant the remaining amount of EUR 88 036.10.
Ombudsman märkis oma otsuses, et kaebuse esitaja ja komisjoni vahel lepiti kokku sõbraliku lahendi osas.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Euroopa Järelevalvekeskus
The Ombudsman closed the case since the Commission had se4 led the ma4 er to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Kaotanud pakkujale väidetavalt ebapiisava teabe andmine
FRIENDLYSOLUTIONS ACHIEVED BY THE OMBUDSMAN
Euroopa Rassismi ja Ksenofoobia Järelevalvekeskuse (EUMC) vastu esitatud kaebuste 1858/2005/BB ja 1859/2005/BB kohta langetatud otsuse kokkuvõte
Alleged unjustified recovery of a sum in the framework of a development project
EUMC viitas üldiselt sellele, et neile saabub ligikaudu 300 e-posti rämpskirja päevas.
Summary of decision on complaint 2577/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Commission
EUMC osutas võitnud pakkuja nime ja pakkumise summa osas hankelepingu sõlmimise teatele ning esitas hindamistulemused ja selgitused, jäädes seisukohale, et menetlus oli olnud läbipaistev.
The complainant, a company participating in a consortium, was a contractor in the implementation of the Commission’s project “EU Assistance to the Rehabilitation of the Lebanese Administration”.
Ombudsmani EUMC selgitused ei rahuldanud. Ombudsman meenutas, et haldusasutus on kohustatud andma taotletud teavet, välja arvatud juhul, kui teabe andmata jätmiseks on kehtivad ja piisavad põhjused.