natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its opinion, the Commission gave a detailed description of the sequence of events and actions, in particular in so far as the period a er the dispatch of the le er of 23 December 1998 was concerned. With specific regard to the allegation made by the complainant, the Commission made the following comments:
1.3 Pärast asjaomaste faktide ja väidete hoolikat kaalumist tegi ombudsman komisjonile e epaneku sõlmida kokkulepe, mille kohaselt viimane vaatab uuesti läbi otsuse 90 000 euro suurust kogusummat mist e välja maksta.
On 31 May 1998, the association had applied for a grant of € 90.000 under budget line A-3024.
1.4 Oma arvamuses teatas komisjon ombudsmanile, et nõustub erandkorras ombudsmani e epanekuga.
The project had been pre-selected for a grant of € 20.000 by the competent selection commi ee in the autumn of 1998.
Komisjon lubas võimalikult rust u kontrollida kaebuse esitaja deklareeritud kulude hüvitatavust.
During that period, the complainant had frequently telephoned with the official in charge of that budget line, Mr H. According to the complainant, Mr H. had promised him over the telephone that a grant of € 90.000 would be provided.
Komisjon rõhutas siiski, et kaebuse esitaja peaks arvestama sellega, et toetuse lõplik summa ei pruugi küündida 90 000 euroni, mida taotleti.
Given that Mr H. had died in November 1999, it was no longer possible to verify what had in fact been said.
Näib, et Euroopa Komisjon ja kaebuse esitaja on ombudsmani algatusel jõudnud käesoleva kaebuse osas rahumeelsele kokkuleppele.
The fi le of DG X did however not contain any trace of these promises.
Seega lõpetab ombudsman asja menetlemise.
In a le er of 30 June 2000, the Director-General had explained that the sum that could be taken in charge amounted to € 1988,54.
Euroopa ombudsmani otsus Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebuse 1166/2002/(SM)IJH asjas
Inspection of the Commission’s fi le
Kaebuse esitas komisjoni endine ametnik.
In the light of the Commission’s opinion, the Ombudsman considered that he needed further information to deal with the complaint.
1. maist 1995 kuni 30. aprillini 1998 töötas kaebuse esitaja abiametnikuna ning 15. maist 1998 kuni 15. maini 2001 ajutise ametnikuna.
He therefore wrote to the Commission on 15 July 2002 to
Kaebuse esitaja seda möödalaskmist ei märganud.
Decisions following an inquiry ask for access to the Commission’s file.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused
It emerged that the fi le of DG X did not contain any originals of documents for the period up to 23 December 1998.
Umbes üks kuu enne ajutise lepingu lõppemist sai kaebuse esitaja ametliku teatise, milles sisaldus informatsioon, et ta oleks pidanud ajutise töölepingu kehtimise ajal saama sekretäri lisatasu.
As a ma er of fact the only document from this period that seemed to be available was a copy of the application of 31 May 1998.
Tegelikult maksti talle sekretäri lisatasu 1. jaanuarist 2001 kuni 15. maini 2001.
The fi le of the Commission’s representation in Germany appeared to be well kept and complete.
Kaebuse esitaja esitas otsuse vastu maksta talle sekretäri lisatasu 1. jaanuarist 2001, mist e ajutise lepingu kehtimahakkamisest ehk 15. maist 1998, personalieeskirjade artikli 90 kohase apellatsiooni.
It contained the correspondence between the representation and the complainant, including a le er from the complainant dated 2 July 1998 and a copy of the le er of 25 November 1998.
Selle peale nõustus komisjon maksma kaebuse esitajale perioodi eest 15. maist 1998 kuni 31. detsembrini 2000 pool saamata jäänud sekretäri lisatasust.
This copy contained a manuscript note by its author according to which the wording of the le er had been “agreed with Mr [H.]” (“mit H. [H.] abgestimmt”).
17. juunil 2002 esitas kaebuse esitaja ombudsmanile kaebuse komisjoni otsuse vastu mist e maksta talle kogu sekretäri lisatasu, millele tal oli õigus alates 15. maist 1998 kuni 31. detsembrini 2000.
The Commission asked the Ombudsman to consider this deplorable situation with leniency.
Oma arvamuses tegi komisjon lühidalt järgmisi märkusi:
In his observations on the Commission’s opinion and its le er of 8 November 2002, the complainant maintained his complaint and made inter alia the following comments:
Kaebuse esitaja tööülesanded aastate 1995–2001 jooksul ei muutunud.
It then confirmed, however, that the Director-General of DG Education and Culture had informed the complainant that the DG would cover the expenses incurred between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
Kaebuse esitaja sai sekretäri lisatasu abiametnikuna (1995–1998), kuid mist e ajutise ametnikuna (1998–2000).
In 1998, the association had applied to work as an info point for the Commission.
Otsuse vaidlustamise tähtaeg oli aegunud.
On 20 February 1998, it had submi ed a declaration according to which it would comply with its contractual obligations, notwithstanding the fact that at that time there were only oral agreements and no wri en contract.
Otsus mist e maksta sekretäri lisatasu alates ajast, mil kaebuse esitaja asus tööle ajutise ametnikuna, tehti kaebuse esitajale teatavaks dokumendis, millele ta kirjutas alla mais 1998.
The association had however relied on oral assurances that this contract would be signed.
Pealegi erinesid alates juunist 1998 kaebuse esitaja palgatõendid aprilli 1998 palgatõendist.
On 26 June 1998, the association was informed by the Commission that the fi le in Brussels was considered to have been lost and that therefore the application had not been processed for some time.
Summade saamatajäämises oli osalisest süüdi ka kaebuse esitaja, sest ei pannud 1998. aasta mais tema õigusi sätestavale dokumendile alla kirjutades tähele selle sisu, ei märganud muutusi palgatõendil ega sissetulekute vastavat vähenemist ning hoolimata sellest, et tegemist oli mõistliku ja e evaatliku inimesega, aitas kaebuse esitaja kaasa sellele, et talle ei makstud õige suurusega summat.
Given that these events confronted the association with a dilemma similar to the one in the present case, the association asked the Commission’s service in charge of ma ers relating to info points to provide advance confirmation of the contract that was to be concluded.
Komisjon lubas siiski oma otsuses, mis saadeti kaebuse esitajale 29. aprillil 2002 aastal vastuseks tema poolt esitatud kaebusele, maksta pool saamatajäänud lisatasust põhjendusega, et kuigi ta oli lohakuse tõ u olnud juhtunus osaliselt ise süüdi, vastutasid toimunu eest ka komisjoni teenistused, sest ei suutnud tagada talle lisatasu õigeaegset maksmist.
This confirmation was provided on 17 September 1998.
Kaebuse esitaja seisukohad
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
Oma seisukohtades tõi kaebuse esitaja esile järgmised punktid:
A er careful consideration of the opinions and observations, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission has responded adequately to the complainant’s allegation.
Ta uskus siiralt, et tema asjaga tegelev vastutav ametnik arvestab talle edastatud informatsiooniga, eelkõige aga asjaoludega, et kaebuse esitaja tööülesanded jäävad samaks, ta jääb tööle samasse üksusesse ning et tegu on kõigest lepingumuudatusega.
The proposal for a friendly solution
OMBUDSMANI JÕUPINGUTUSED RAHUMEELSE KOKKULEPPE SAAVUTAMISEKS
In accordance with Article 3 (5) of his Statute, the Ombudsman therefore made the following proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission:
Pärast komisjoni arvamuse ja kaebuse esitaja seisukohtade hoolikat kaalumist leidis ombudsman, et komisjon polnud kaebuse esitaja väidetele adekvaatselt reageerinud. Seetõ u kirjutas ombudsman
The European Commission should consider reviewing its decision to refuse to pay the Europäisches Kultur- und Informationszentrum in Thüringen the full sum of € 90.000.
53 kooskõlas ombudsmani põhimääruse artikli 3 lõikega 5 komisjoni eesistujale ning tegi e epaneku jõuda rahumeelsele kokkuleppele järgneva kaebuse esitaja ja komisjoni vaheliste lahkarvamuste analüüsi alusel.
This proposal was based on the following considerations:
Sekretäri lisatasu tagantjärele maksmise nõue
1 The complainant was the director of a German association that had applied to the Commission for a grant of € 90.000.
1.1 Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et komisjon jä is talle maksmata kogu sekretäri lisatasu, mida tal oli õigus saada 15. maist 1998 kuni 31. detsembrini 2000.
In the end, only an amount of € 21.988,54 had been granted.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis, et komisjon maksaks selle summa tagantjärele.
The complainant claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the balance of the grant that in his view the Commission had accepted to provide to the association.
1.2 Komisjon möönis, et kaebuse esitaja tööülesanded jäid pärast lepingu muutumist samaks.
He basically alleged that the association had been entitled to rely on the assurances that he claimed had been made by Mr H. of the Commission’s services and according to which the full amount of € 90.000 would be granted.
Komisjon väitis, et kaebuse esitajal pole enam õigust vaidlustada otsust mist e maksta talle, kui ajutisele ametnikule, sekretäri lisatasu.
The complainant stressed that it was on this basis that the association had begun to realise its project and incurred expenditure or entered into financial commitments.
Mis puudutas aga võimalikku süüdistust lohakuses, siis komisjon väitis, et kaebuse esitaja oli osaliselt ise süüdi, sest kirjutas alla dokumendile, milles seisis, et sekretäri lisatasu ei maksta.
2 The Commission accepted that the complainant had frequently telephoned with Mr H. during the relevant period.
Samuti sai ta palgatõendid, milles lisatasu ei mainitud.
It took the view, however, that since Mr H. had died in November 1999, it was no longer possible to verify what had in fact been said.
Kuna aga komisjoni teenistused olid samuti osaliselt süüdi, otsustas komisjon maksta kaebuse esitajale pool saamata jäänud lisatasust.
The Commission added that the fi le of DG X did not contain any trace of the promises to which the complainant had referred.
1.3 Ombudsman võ is arvesse asjaolu, et komisjon tunnistas kaebuse esitaja õigust saada sekretäri lisatasu kogu kõnealuse perioodi eest, ning seda, et komisjon ei väitnud, nagu takistaks mõni eeskiri või säte teda maksmast tagasiulatuvalt kogu lisatasu, mida kaebuse esitajal oli õigus saada.
The complainant was thus in effect relying on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
1.4 Ombudsman võ is arvesse ka komisjoni väite, et kaebuse esitaja oli ka ise süüdi hooletuses.
According to the case law of the Community courts, however, a breach of this principle cannot be invoked unless the administration has given precise assurances to the person concerned51.
Komisjon ei väitnud, et kaebuse esitaja oleks abi- või ajutise ametnikuna töötades jätnud täitmata personalieeskirjade kohaseid ülesandeid.
In the present case, the complainant submi ed that the Commission’s case-handler had assured him that the Commission would grant the full amount of € 90.000 that the association had requested.
Olemasolevatest tõenditest selgus, et komisjon ise algatas kaebuse esitaja staatuse muutmise abiametnikust ajutiseks ametnikuks.
This would appear to be a precise assurance.
Lõpuks võ is ombudsman arvesse, et kaebuse esitaja ei nõudnud intresside maksmist.
It had to be noted, however, that the Ombudsman was unable to verify this allegation with the means that the Statute of the Ombudsman52 put at his disposal.
Kuna kaebuse esitaja ei kasutanud ära varasemaid võimalusi komisjoni tehtud viga parandada, kaotaks ta rahaliselt isegi juhul, kui komisjon maksaks ära kogu lisatasu, millele kaebuse esitajal enda väite kohaselt õigus oli.
The Commission’s fi le that had been inspected by the Ombudsman’s services did not contain any trace of such assurances. The only person that could probably have shed light on the issue and that could have been heard as a witness by the Ombudsman, i.e. Mr H. himself, was dead.
1.5 Eespool toodu valgusel järeldas ombudsman esialgselt, et komisjoni otsus maksta kaebuse esitajale ainult pool lisatasust oli omavoliline ja ebaaus ning et komisjon peaks seetõ u hoolega oma seisukohta kaaluma, lähtudes seejuures käesoleva juhtumi erakorralistest asjaoludest.
The Commission accepted that there had been numerous contacts over the telephone between the complainant and Mr H. It would therefore have been appropriate for the official concerned to make a record of these conversations or at least of the most important points that had been discussed on these occasions.
Omavolilise ja ebaausa institutsiooni maine vältimiseks soovitas Euroopa ombudsman komisjonil kaaluda, arvestades käesoleva juhtumi erakorralisi asjaolusid, kõnealuse perioodi eest saamata jäänud sekretäri lisatasu maksmist kogu summas.
5 The Ombudsman considered that there were at least three elements that would appear to support the complainant’s case.
Ombudsmani e epanekule antud vastuses rõhutas komisjon, et tal pole kaebuse esitaja suhtes, kes ei vaidlustanud otsust selleks e enähtud aja jooksul, mingeid õiguslikke kohustusi.
First, given that the project had been due to start in September 1998, the association obviously had a vital interest to learn in good time (and at the latest at the beginning of September 1998) whether the Commission would provide the grant it had requested.
Komisjon leidis siiski, et Euroopa ombudsmani märkusi silmas pidades on käesolev juhtum erandlik ning seetõ u on õigustatud ex gratia kompensatsiooni maksmine.
This was confirmed by the complainant’s le er of 2 July 1998 to the Commission’s representation in Germany.
2. juunil 2003 teatas kaebuse esitaja telefoni teel ombudsmanile, et rahumeelne kokkulepe on saavutatud.
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, 1994 OJ L 113/15.
”Ombudsman püüab koostöös asjaomase institutsiooni või asutusega leida võimaluse antud haldusliku omavoli juhtum lahendada ja rahuldada esitatud kaebus.”
Decisions following an inquiry other sources.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused
Since the project was not cancelled but carried out the complainant’s allegation that he obtained satisfactory assurances from Mr H. appeared to be credible.
1.1 Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et komisjon ei maksnud talle kogu sekretäri lisatasu, mida tal oli õigus saada.
Second, the complainant had explained that already in the past the association had implemented (and had had to implement) projects on the basis of merely oral assurances.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis komisjonilt kogu summa tagantjärele maksmist.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had not made any comments on this aspect of the case.
1.2 Pärast komisjoni arvamuse ja kaebuse esitaja seisukohtade hoolikat kaalumist kirjutas ombudsman komisjoni eesistujale ning tegi e epaneku jõuda ombudsmani põhimääruse artikli 3 lõike 5kohasele rahumeelsele kokkuleppele.
Third, the fact that the complainant had obtained and relied on assurances from Mr H. was given added credibility by the fact that other Commission officials themselves had relied on the word of this person.
1.3 Ombudsmani e epanekule antud vastuses rõhutas komisjon, et tal pole kaebuse esitaja, kes ei vaidlustanud otsust selleks e enähtud aja jooksul, suhtes mingeid õiguslikke kohustusi.
The le er of 25 November 1998 sent by the Commission’s representation in Germany had, as the inspection of the fi le had shown, been based on information by Mr H.
Komisjon leidis siiski, et Euroopa ombudsmani märkusi silmas pidades on käesolev juhtum erandlik ning seetõ u on õigustatud ex gratia kompensatsiooni maksmine.
6 The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had not put forward any arguments to establish why the complainant should not have been entitled to rely on such assurances by the Commission’s case-handler.
Kaebuse esitaja teatas ombudsmanile, et rahumeelne kokkulepe on saavutatud.
7 In the light of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s refusal to pay the association the full amount of € 90.000 that the la er had applied for on 31 May 1998 could be an instance of maladministration.
Näib, et Euroopa Komisjon ja kaebuse esitaja on käesoleva kaebuse osas ombudsmani algatusel rahumeelsele kokkuleppele jõudnud.
The Commission’s opinion
Seega lõpetab ombudsman asja menetlemise.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the Ombudsman’s conclusions were not based on facts that had been clearly established by tangible evidence, but only on assumptions and deductions arrived at by way of analogy to other situations.
Kaebuse esitaja oli Saksamaa nädalalehe ”Stern” Brüsseli korrespondent. Alates 2002. aasta veebruarist on väljaanne kajastanud mitmeid väidetavaid finantsrikkumisi Euroopa Komisjonis, eelkõige Euroopa Ühenduste Statistikaametis (ühes komisjoni peadirektoraatidest).
The Commission also stressed that the position it had maintained so far simply reflected its obligation to comply with the principle of sound financial management.
Kaebuse esitaja edastas ombudsmanile 12. märtsil 2002, 26. märtsil 2002, 28. märtsil 2002, 5. aprillil 2002, 8. juulil 2002, 22. juulil 2002, 26. juulil 2002 ning 7. augustil 2002 komisjonile saadetud kirjalike küsimuste ja kirjade koopiad ning mõned komisjonilt saadud vastused.
In this context, it appeared useful to reiterate that the Commission could only be bound to provide financial assistance by a wri en commitment to the future beneficiary that had been drawn up in accordance with the relevant rules.
Mitmed nimetatud küsimustest puudutasid firma Eurogramme ja statistikaameti vahel sõlmitud lepinguid.
The Commission added, however, that in order to preserve the image of the European institutions in the eye of the citizen and to avoid causing damage to the beneficiary in the present case, it was by way of exception ready to accept the Ombudsman’s proposal.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et komisjon oli korduvalt keeldunud andmast informatsiooni põhjendusega, et küsimused puudutasid OLAF-i (Euroopa Pe ustevastase Ameti) poolt läbiviidavat juurdlust.
It would therefore check the account of expenses linked to the relevant project as quickly as possible in order to ascertain the expenses that were eligible and, consequently, the balance due to the beneficiary.
Kaebuse esitaja sõnul keeldus komisjon vahel edastamast isegi tavalist informatsiooni, näiteks selle kohta, milliseid lepinguid on komisjon konkreetse äriühinguga sõlminud.
The Commission pointed out, however, that the complainant had to be aware of the fact that the final amount of the subsidy would not necessarily correspond to the sum of 90.000 € that had been claimed.
Kaebuse esitaja leidis, et komisjoni käitumine oli ebakorrektne ning komisjon takistas seeläbi väljaande püüdlusi teavitada avalikkust antud küsimustest.
The complainant’s observations
Kaebuse esitaja tõi oma väidete tõestamiseks mitmeid argumente.
On 20 March 2003, the complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that a friendly solution could be considered as having been brought about.
Esiteks oli kaebuse esitaja seisukohal, et komisjon ei selgitanud, miks peaks palutud informatsiooni edastamine kahjustama OLAF-is läbiviidavat juurdlust.
1.1 The complainant was the director of a German association that had applied to the Commission for a grant of € 90.000.
Kolmandaks väitis ta, et OLAF-i juurdlused kestavad teinekord lubamatult kaua.
In the end, only an amount of € 21.988,54 had been granted.
Tema sõnul uuritakse mõningaid statistikaametiga seotud väiteid juba 1998. aastast alates.
The complainant claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the balance of the grant that in his view the Commission had accepted to provide to the association.
Kaebuse esitaja rõhutas, et nii võib komisjon varjata lähteandmeid aastaid, rääkimata veel järgneda võivatest kriminaal- või haldusjuurdlustest, mida saab samuti teabe varjamisel e ekäändeks tuua.
He basically alleged that the association had been entitled to rely on the assurances that he claimed had been made by Mr H. of the Commission’s services and according to which the full amount of € 90.000 would be granted.
Neljandaks väitis kaebuse esitaja, et komisjon toimis meelevaldselt, kui arvestada, et mõnikord ta vastas OLAF-i juurdlust puudutavatele küsimustele ja mõnikord keeldus seda tegemast.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission basically took the view that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s claim.
Lõpuks väitis kaebuse esitaja, et komisjon andis meelevaldseid
Decisions following an inquiry
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused põhjendusi selle kohta, miks ta ei saa nõutud teavet anda.
1.3 A er careful examination of all the relevant facts and arguments, the Ombudsman submi ed a proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission according to which the la er should consider reviewing its decision to refuse to pay the full sum of € 90.000.
Kaebuse esitaja sõnul olevat komisjon ühe juhtumi korral esmalt teatanud, et asjaolusid veel selgitatakse, seejärel kirjutanud, et ”antud hetkel” ei ole võimalik asjaomastele küsimustele vastata ning lõpuks teatanud, et ei saa asjaomast teavet anda ”sest see on osaliselt seotud OLAF-i poolt läbiviidava juurdlusega”.
1.4 In its opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it was, by way of exception, ready to accept the Ombudsman’s proposal.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis, et komisjon vastaks küsimustele, mida oli talle tulutult esitatud 2002. aasta märtsist alates.
Conclusion
Komisjoni arvamus
Following the Ombudsman’s initiative, it appears that a friendly solution to the complaint has been agreed between the European Commission and the complainant.
Komisjoni hea haldustava eeskiri kehtib võrdselt nii kodanike kui meedia poolt esitatud teabenõuetele.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Meedial (st ajakirjanikel) pole käesoleva eeskirja kohaselt erilisi ja/või lisaõigusi peale nende, mis on eeskirjas avalikkuselt saadud järelepärimistega tegelemiseks e e nähtud.
COMMISSION ACCEPTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO FORMER AUXILIARY AGENT
Pressi- ja sidetalitus on ülitäpselt kinni pidanud sätestatud tähtaegadest, mis tähendab seda, et vastus on saadetud 15 tööpäeva jooksul alates järelepärimise saamisest.
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1166/2002/(SM)IJH against the European Commission
Komisjon tunnistas siiski, et kaebuse esitaja ei saanud vastust oma 5. aprilli 2002. aasta läkitusele, ning palus selle pärast vabandust.
The complaint was made by a former agent of the Commission.
Arvamus, et komisjon oli tundlikku teavet puudutavate teabenõuete üle otsustades meelevaldselt käitunud, tekkis asjaolust, et igale üksikjuhtumile läheneti eraldi.
From 1 May 1995 to 30 April 1998, she worked as an auxiliary agent. From 15 May 1998 to 15 May 2001, she worked as a temporary agent.
Komisjon vastas korrektselt kaebuse esitaja poolt tehtud järelepärimistele faktilise teabe osas.
During her period as an auxiliary agent, the complainant received a secretarial allowance under Article 4a of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and Article 21 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.
Kuid enamik kaebuses nimetatud järelepärimistest ei puudutanud olemasolevat faktilist teavet, vaid oleksid nõudnud komisjonilt seisukoha võtmist väga konkreetsetes küsimustes.
At the start of her temporary contract, the Commission ceased to pay the secretarial allowance.
Komisjonil oli kaalutlusõigus selle üle, millisele seisukohale asuda ja millal seda teha, ning seega võis ta jä a endale õiguse küsimust mist e kommenteerida.
The complainant did not notice this omission.
Väite osas, nagu oleks komisjon keeldunud küsimustele vastamast põhjendusel, et teave puudutas OLAF-i juurdlust, märkis komisjon, et nimetatud juurdlusi puudutavad küsimused tuleks esitada OLAF-ile.
Approximately one month before the end of her temporary contract, the complainant received an official note informing her that she should have received the secretarial allowance during her temporary contract.
Komisjon oli arvamusel, et kaebuse esitaja poolt tehtud konkreetne järelepärimine, milles sooviti teatud äriühinguga sõlmitud kehtivate lepingute nimekirja, langes just nimetatud määruse pädevusalasse.
However, the secretarial allowance was in fact granted to her only from 1 January 2001 to 15 May 2001.
Andmebaas ei sisaldanud lepingute täielikku nimekirja.