natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
During 1996 and 1997, the complainant jointly with other contributors, participated in an AIDS’ related project called EUROVITHA, which was coordinated by the Department of Psychology of the University of Tuebingen in Germany.
Lepingu sõlmimise eel tehti WWP Ltd.-le selgeks, et viimane peab töö tähtajaks ära tegema, samal ajal kui bürokraatia püüab reaalsusega sammu pidada. Selline praktika kehtis kolm aastat ning seda tunnustasid mitmete komisjoni peadirektoraatide vastutavad ametnikud.
On 7 October 1997, the Commission agreed to finance part of the project (Agreement SOC 97 20113505F02 “Evaluation of Guided Group Programmes for People with HIV/AIDS, Creation of a Network of Therapists in D.E.I.”).
Eespool toodu põhjal väitis kaebuse esitaja, et kohaldatavat EL määrust kas muudeti tagasiulatuvalt või kui seda rikuti, siis tegid seda komisjoni vastutavad ametnikud.
The parties to the contract were the Commission and the Department of Psychology of the University of Tuebingen, whereas COGAM appeared as an associated contractor.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et komisjon peab oma seisukohta muutma ning tasuma ära saadaolevad 40% koos intressidega ja maksma kaebuse esitajale asjaajamisele kulutatud aja eest kompensatsiooni.
Despite the fact that its contribution to the contract had been concluded in February 1999, COGAM has not received its payment of 8200 €.
Ombudsman edastas kaebuse arvamuse avaldamiseks komisjonile.
In reply to COGAM’s requests to the project’s main contractor, it was informed that the situation resulted from the Commission’s failure to honour its fi financial commitments.
Kaebuse esitaja ütluse alusel, milles väideti, et Ühendkuningriigi välisministeerium maksis projekti
The complainant wrote to the Commission on 7 June 2002 asking for information on the state of the file, and requesting the payment of its outstanding fees.
3 lõikega 3 Ühendkuningriigi välisministeeriumi anda teavet, millest võiks uurimisel kasu olla.
COGAM did not receive a reply to its le er.
Ombudsman vastust ei saanud.
On 7 October 1997 the complainant, as a subcontractor, and the Eberhard Karls Universität, as the main contractor, entered into an agreement with the Commission for the implementation of a project on the “Evaluation of Guided Group Programmes for People with AIDS/VIH”.
Kaebuse esitaja kinnitas ombudsmani teenistustele telefoni teel, et sai nõutud summa kä e koos intressidega ning et ta on rahul.
The project received Community assistance through the EUROVITHA Community Programme on the fight against AIDS.
Kaebuse esitaja tänas ombudsmani abi eest.
In his capacity as project co-ordinator, Professor H. of the Eberhard Karls Universität was responsible for selecting subcontractors for specific parts of the project, and concluding individual contracts.
Kaebuse esitaja saatis 2. septembril 2003 kirja ka komisjoni põllumajanduse peadirektoraadi üksuse AII.1 juhatajale, milles tänas teda 5008 euro ja intresside, summas 659,83 eurot, maksmise eest ning teatas, et asi on lahendatud.
The final report, however, was only received three years later, in November 2002.
Lepingujärgselt väljamaksmisele kuuluva summa maksmatajätmine
On 27 March 2002, the Commission wrote to Professor H. and requested him to submit the final report, so that all the Community assistance could be paid.
1.1 Kaebuse esitaja on tegevdirektor e evõ es, mis tootis telesaadet, mille kaasrahastajaks oli komisjon.
In its le er, the Commission suggested that the contractor inform all his subcontractors of the state of play. On 7 June 2002, the Commission received a request from COGAM for the payment of its outstanding fees.
Kaebuse esitaja ütluse kohaselt teatas komisjoni põllumajanduse peadirektoraat e evõ ele, et EL fi nantsmäärust on rikutud, sest WWP Ltd. tegi saate valmis enne, kui leping sõlmiti ning et 40% tasust välja ei maksta ja WWP Ltd. peab tagasi maksma juba kä esaadud 60%.
It emerged from that request that the coordinator of the project had not explained the situation to all its sub-contractors, as the Commission had requested.
Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjon peab oma seisukohta muutma ning tasuma ära saadaolevad 40% tasust koos intressidega ja maksma kaebuse esitajale asjaajamisele kulutatud aja eest kompensatsiooni.
Since the Commission could not make any payment to parties with which it did not have a direct contractual relationship, it urged the Eberhard Karls Universität to submit the justifying documents required for the final payment by le er of 15 October 2002.
“Liikmesriikide ametiasutused on kohustatud andma Euroopa Ühenduste juures tegutsevate liikmesriikide alaliste esinduste kaudu ombudsmanile tema nõudel mistahes teavet, mis võib aidata tuvastada ühenduse institutsioonide või asutuste haldusliku omavoli juhtumeid, välja arvatud juhtudel, kui selline teave on tunnistatud seaduste või määrustega salajaseks või kui teabe (avalikustamine) edastamine on vastavate sätete alusel keelatud.
On 14 November 2002, the Commission received the final report from the Eberhard Karls Universität.
1.2 Komisjon teatab oma arvamuses, et pärast juhtumi ülevaatamist ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuse alusel otsustasid komisjoni pädevad osakonnad maksta nõutud summa välja ning et selleks vajalikud haldusmeetmed võetakse kasutusele niipea kui võimalik.
On 20 December 2002, the institution proceeded to make the final payment to the contractor for an amount of 59.859,30 €.
Komisjon saatis seejärel ombudsmanile kaebuse esitajale adresseeritud kirja koopia, milles kinnitas vaidlusaluse summa maksmist kaebuse esitaja pangaarvele.
On 5 May 2003, the Ombudsman received the complainant’s observations.
1.3 Kaebuse esitaja kinnitab, et kuna komisjon maksis ära 5008 eurot ja intressid, summas 659,83 eurot, on ta rahul ning asi on lahendatud.
COGAM explained that, on the basis of the information submi ed in the Commission’s opinion, they had contacted the project’s co-ordinator.
1.4 Eespool toodu põhjal leiab ombudsman, et komisjon võ is juhtumi lahendamiseks vajalikud meetmed ning on seega kaebuse rahuldanud.
THE DECISION
Lõppjäreldus
It appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant’s observations that the Commission has taken steps to se le the ma er and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Komisjoni arvamusest ja kaebuse esitaja seisukohavõtust selgub, et komisjon on võtnud juhtumi lahendamiseks kasutusele vajalikud meetmed ning seega kaebuse rahuldanud.
PAYMENT OF AMOUNT DUE UNDER CONTRACT
TUD RAHA VIDETAV MAKSMAT
Decision on complaint 205/2003/IJH against the European Commission
Otsus Euroopa Komisjoni vastu esitatud 1173/2003/(TN)IJH asjas
The complainant is Managing Director of a company WWP Ltd.
Juunis 2003 esitati ombudsmanile kaebus Stockholmi Ülikooli nimel.
The complaint is against the Commission, DG Agriculture.
Kaebus esitati komisjoni vastu, kes väidetavalt jä is uurimisprojekti (lepingunumbriga ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158) rahastamisel tegemata lõppmakse.
In summary, the relevant facts according to the complainant are as follows:
Kaebuses toodud olulised asjaolud olid kokkuvõ es järgmised:
Between January 1998 and December 2001, WWP Ltd. produced a monthly television programme called “CONTACT Europe”.
Stockholmi Ülikool osales uurimisprojektis, mida koordineeris Itaalia firma CHIRON ning rahastas komisjon.
Each edition had four stories, which were sponsored by Directorates General of the Commission under specific contracts, paid for by Member States, or co-funded.
Kaebuse esitamise ajaks oli CHIRON oodanud komisjonipoolset lõppmakset kuus kuud.
In April 2000, WWP Ltd. delivered a story about organic agriculture.
Osa lõppmaksest oldi võlgu Stockholmi Ülikoolile.
The budget was € 25 036, funded half by DG Agriculture and half by the UK Foreign Offi ce.
Kogu CHIRON-ile võlgu oldud summa ulatus 196 528 euroni, millest 60 000 eurot pidi makstama Stockholmi Ülikoolile.
The UK Foreign Offi ce paid its half.
Juunis 2002 püüdis kaebuse esitaja välja uurida, miks pole lõppmakset tehtud.
However, as was o en the case, the Commission was very slow in ge ing the specific contract out.
Detsembris 2002 saatis Stockholmi Ülikool komisjonile lisadokumente, mille peale komisjon kinnitas, et raha makstakse CHIRON-ile paari nädala jooksul.
In this case, the contract was not issued until June 2000.
Kuna makset ei tehtud, võ is kaebuse esitaja umbes kümme korda komisjoniga telefoni teel ühendust.
The Commission paid 60% of its half of the funding on signature.
Komisjonist öeldi, et sisemiste ümberkorralduste tõ u puudub neil ”ülekande kinnitaja” ja seetõ u pole neil võimalik makset teha.
WWP Ltd. subsequently invoiced the Commission for the final 40% and continued to press for payment throughout 2001 and into 2002.
Mais 2003 kirjutas kaebuse esitaja komisjonile, kuid vastust ei saanud.
WWP Ltd. met with DG Agriculture and requested a meeting with the relevant financial and legal services to discuss the Regulation in question.
Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjon jä is uurimisprojekti (lepingunumbriga ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158) rahastamisel tegemata lõppmakse.
DG Agriculture undertook to provide WWP Ltd. with a copy of the Regulation and to arrange a meeting if WWP Ltd. felt the ma er required further clarification.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis lõppmakse ning viivise maksmist projekti Itaalia koordinaatorile, firmale CHIRON.
However, despite numerous follow-up requests, WWP Ltd. has not been informed of the Regulation and its latest requests have received no response.
Oma arvamuses andis komisjon järgmisi selgitusi.
It had been made clear to WWP Ltd. from the pre-contract stage that it would need to produce work whilst the bureaucracy caught up with the reality of the deadlines.
Lepingu teaduslikes eesmärkides lepiti kokku 29. juulil 2002 ning vastav toimik edastati direktoraadile, mis vastutas vastava eelarve eest.
This situation continued for three years and was accepted by the responsible officials in various Commission DGs.
31. juulil 2002 võ is direktoraadi rahandusliku poole eest vastutav isik ühendust projekti koordinaatori CHIRON-iga, paludes teha parandusi kuluaruannetes. Parandused
On the basis of the above, the complainant argues that either a change in the applicable EU Regulation was applied retrospectively, or that the breach of the Regulation, if any, was by the responsible Commission officials. cials.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused saadi alles 5. detsembril 2002 ja makse võeti menetlusse 19. detsembril 2002, kuid selleks ajaks oli 2002. aasta eelarve juba suletud.
The complainant claims that the Commission should reverse its position and pay the remaining 40% due with interest, as well as compensation for the complainant’s time spent on the ma er.
Teadusuuringute peadirektoraadis esinenud organisatoorsete probleemide tõ u ei saadud vajalikke allkirju, kaasa arvatud finantsdokumentide kinnitaja ja eelarvevahendite käsutaja omi, enne 11. juulit 2003.
The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission for an opinion.
Komisjon tunnistab, et alates 5. detsembrist 2002 kuulus raha maksmisele ning makse oleks tulnud teha 60 päeva jooksul, s.t 5. veebruariks 2003.
In view of the complainant’s statement that the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Offi ce had duly paid its half of the funding for the project, the Ombudsman also invited the UK
Komisjon lubab alustada viivise maksmise menetlust ajavahemiku eest 6. veebruarist 2003 kuni 21. juulini 2003 niipea, kui saab kaebuse esitajalt makse heakskiitmiseks vajaliku nõude.
50, any authorities to provide, in accordance with Article 3 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman information which could be useful for the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint. No reply was received.
Komisjon vabandab makse hilinemise pärast ning kinnitab ombudsmanile, et ülekannete tegemine toimib taas rahuldavalt.
In May 2003, the Commission stated that having reexamined the fi le in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission have decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible.
Kaebuse esitaja kinnitas ombudsmani teenistustele telefoni teel, et Stockholmi Ülikool sai lõppmakse kä e ning et viivised peaksid CHIRON-i pangaarvele laekuma varsti, kui need polegi juba laekunud. Kaebuse esitaja oli juhtumi lahendusega rahul ning tänas ombudsmani abi eest.
In July 2003, the Commission sent a copy of a le er that it had addressed to the complainant confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.
Uurimisprojekti rahastamisel lõppmakse tegematajätmine
The complainant confirmed to the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that he has received the amount due, with interest, and that he is satisfied.
1.1 Kaebus puudutab väidet, et komisjon jä is uurimisprojekti (lepingunumber ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158) rahastamisel tegemata lõppmakse projekti koordinaatorile.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance.
Projektis osales ka Stockholmi Ülikool.
The complainant also sent a copy of his le er dated 2 September 2003 to the head of unit AII.1 of Commission DG Agriculture, thanking him for the payment of € 5 008 and the interest due of € 659,83 and stating that the ma er is se led.
Stockholmi Ülikooli nimel kaebuse esitanu nõuab projekti koordinaatorile lõppmakse tegemist ning viivise maksmist.
1.1 The complainant is Managing Director of a company which produced a story that was cofunded by the Commission.
1.2 Komisjon tunnistab, et alates 5. detsembrist 2002 kuulus raha maksmisele ning makse oleks tulnud teha 60 päeva jooksul.
According to the complainant, Commission DG Agriculture informed the company that an EU financial Regulation had been broken because the company had made the story before the relevant contract was issued, that the final 40% would not be paid and that the company would have to repay the 60% already paid.
Kuid organisatoorsete probleemide tõ u teaduse- ja tehnoloogiaarenduse peadirektoraadis ei suudetud raha CHIRON-i pangaarvele kanda enne 21. juulit 2003.
The complainant claims that the Commission should reverse its position and pay the remaining 40% due with interest, as well as compensation for the complainant’s time spent on the ma er.
Komisjon vabandas makse hilinemise pärast ning kinnitas ombudsmanile, et raharinglus toimib taas rahuldavalt. Komisjon alustas viivise maksmise menetlust ajavahemiku eest 6. veebruarist 2003 kuni 21. juulini 2003.
1.2 The Commission’s opinion states that, having reexamined the fi le in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible.
1.3 Kaebuse esitaja kinnitab, et Stockholmi Ülikool sai lõppmakse kä e, et viivised peaksid laekuma varsti ning et ta on lõpptulemusega rahul.
The Commission subsequently sent a copy of a le er confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.
1.4 Eespool toodu põhjal leiab ombudsman, et komisjon astus samme juhtumi lahendamiseks ning on seega kaebuse rahuldanud.
“The Member States’ authorities shall be obliged to provide the Ombudsman, whenever he may so request, via the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the European Communities, with any information that may help to clarify instances of maladministration by Community institutions or bodies unless such information is covered by laws or regulations on secrecy or by provisions preventing its being communicated.
Komisjoni arvamusest ja kaebuse esitaja märkustest selgub, et komisjon võ is juhtumi lahendamiseks kasutusele vajalikke meetmeid ning on seega rahuldanud kaebuse esitaja nõude.
Nonetheless, in the la er case, the Member State concerned may allow the Ombudsman to have this information provided that he undertakes not to divulge it.”
Seega lõpetab ombudsman asja menetlemise.
1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to se le the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
VIDETAV INFORMATSIOONI PUUDUMINE KONTROLLIKOJA POOLT KORRALDATUD KONKURSIST VLJAARVAMISE PÕHJUSTE KOHTA
ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE FINAL PAYMENT IN RESEARCH PROJECT
Kaebuses toodud olulised asjaolud olid alljärgnevad:
Decision on complaint 1173/2003/(TN)IJH against the European Commission
Kaebuse esitaja kandideeris kontrollikoja poolt korraldatud avalikul konkursil CC/A/12/02 infotehnoloogia valdkonna administraatori (karjäärivahemik A7/A6) ametikohale (EÜT C 145 A, 18. juuni 2002).
In June 2003, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman on behalf of Stockholm University. The complaint concerned the Commission’s alleged failure to make a final payment in a research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
Konkursikomisjoni sekretariaat teatas 2002. aasta 29. novembri kirjas kaebuse esitajale, et tema kandidatuuri ei arvestata, sest ”pärast kõigi kandidaatide ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialase kogemuse võrdlemist ei ole Teie nimi sobivaimate kandidaatide hulgas, keda palutakse vastavalt konkursiteatise VII osale konkureerima”.
Stockholm University was one of the participants in a research project, which was coordinated by the Italian company CHIRON and funded by the Commission.
Konkursiteatise VII osas on öeldud, et ”pärast sobivuse hindamist lubatakse kirjalikku testi sooritama 50 kõige enam punkte saanud kandidaati”.
In June 2002, the complainant tried to find out why there had been no final payment.
8. detsembril 2002 kirjutas kaebuse esitaja konkursikomisjonile, paludes oma kandidatuur uuesti üle vaadata.
In December 2002, Stockholm University sent the Commission supplementary documentation and the Commission subsequently confirmed that the payment should be made to CHIRON within a couple of weeks.
Ta palus teavet a) ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialaste kogemuste hindamiskriteeriumite, b) tema punktisumma ning c) viimasena aktsepteeritud kandidaadi punktisumma kohta.
In May 2003, the complainant wrote to the Commission regarding the ma er, but received no reply.
Vastust ta ei saanud.
The complainant alleges that the Commission has failed to make a final payment in the research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
29. jaanuaril 2003 esitas kaebuse esitaja ombudsmanile käesoleva kaebuse, väites, et:
The complainant claims that the final payment should be made to the coordinator CHIRON in Italy, together with interest for the delay.
1. kontrollikoda peab andma talle teavet a) ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialaste kogemuste hindamiskriteeriumite, b) tema punktide arvu ning c) viimasena aktsepteeritud kandidaadi punktisumma kohta;
The Commission’s opinion
2. tema kandidatuur tuleb uuesti läbi vaadata.
In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
14. veebruaril 2003 saatis kaebuse esitaja täiendavat teavet.
The contract in question is managed by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research (DG RTD).
Konkursikomisjon väitis, et rohkem punkte saanud kandidaatidel oli lisaks konkursil osalemiseks vajalikule kraadile veel vähemalt üks teaduskraad.
The scientific deliverables of the contract were approved on 29 July 2002, and the fi le was then transmi ed to the Directorate in charge of the relevant budget.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis omakorda, et tema mõlemad teaduskraadid võimaldavad edasi minna doktorõppesse ning on tööülesannete olemusega otseselt seotud.
On 31 July 2002, the financial initiator within this Directorate contacted the coordinator CHIRON, requesting corrections in the cost statements.
Kaebuse esitaja väitel vastas konkursikomisjon ametialase kogemuse osas, et rohkem punkte saanud kandidaatidel oli kogemust kümme või enam aastat.
The requested corrections did not arrive until 5 December 2002 and the payment was processed on 19 December 2002, but by then the budget for 2002 was already closed.
Konkursiteatise jaos III.B.3 oli siiski öeldud, et kogemust peab olema vähemalt kolm aastat. Kaebuse esitajal oli ametialast kogemust seitse aastat, kuid ta sai 30-st võimalikust punktist ainult 14,64.
Following the opening of the 2003 budget, the financial initiator again initiated the payment on 28 February 2003.
Lõpetuseks rõhutas kaebuse esitaja, et teab kandidaati, keda lubati kirjalikule eksamile, ilma et tal oleks olnud lisadiplomit või kümmet aastat kogemust.
Due to organisational problems within DG RTD, the necessary signatures, including those of the financial verificator and the authorising officer, could not be obtained until 11 July 2003.
Arvestades, et kirjalikud eksamid pidid toimuma 28. veebruaril 2003, palus kaebuse esitaja oma kaebus võimalikult kiiresti läbi vaadata.
The payment was then transferred to CHIRON’s bank account on 21 July 2003.
30. jaanuaril 2002 saadetud kirjas edastas konkursikomisjoni esimees kaebuse esitajale üldist teavet ning kogutud punktisumma.
The Commission recognises that as of 5 December 2002, the payment was due and should have been executed within 60 days, i.e. by 5 February 2003.
Pärast asja lähemat uurimist otsustas kontrollikoda anda kaebuse esitajale teavet, mida viimane palus punktide a) ja c) all.
It will therefore initiate the payment of interest for the period from 6 February 2003 to 21 July 2003, as soon as it receives a direct claim from the complainant, which is necessary to authorise the payment.
2. mai 2003. aasta kirjas tõi konkursikomisjoni esimees kaebuse esitajale välja ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialase kogemuse hindamise kriteeriumid ning tegi talle teatavaks vastava kalkulatsiooni alusel saadud punktid (14,64/40).
The complainant has already been contacted in this respect.
Lisaks teatati kaebuse esitajale, et viimane aktsepteeritud kandidaat oli saanud 32 punkti.
The Commission apologises for the late payment and assures the Ombudsman that the financial circuit is now functioning satisfactorily.
Konkursikomisjoni esimees arvutas kaebuse esitaja punktid uuesti üle ja kinnitas, et viga ei olnud.
He was therefore satisfied with the outcome of the case and thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance.
Kaebuse esitaja kontrollikoja arvamuse peale oma seisukohta ei edastanud.
Failure to make a final payment in a research project
Valimismenetlust puudutav teave
1.1 The complaint concerns the Commission’s alleged failure to make a final payment to the coordinator of a research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158, to which Stockholm University is a party.
1.1 Kaebuse esitaja nõuab, et kontrollikoda peab andma talle teavet a) ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialaste kogemuste hindamiskriteeriumite, b) tema punktisumma ning c) viimasena aktsepteeritud kandidaadi punktisumma kohta.
1.2 The Commission recognises that as of 5 December 2002, the payment was due and should have been paid within 60 days. However, due to organisational problems within DG RTD, the payment could not be transferred to CHIRON’s bank account until 21 July 2003.
1.2 Oma arvamuses märgib kontrollikoda, et 30. jaanuaril 2002 saadetud kirjas edastas konkursikomisjoni esimees kaebuse esitajale üldist teavet ning viimase saadud punktide arvu.
The Commission apologised for the late payment and assured the Ombudsman that the financial circuit is now functioning satisfactorily.
Lisaks edastas konkursikomisjoni esimees oma 2. mai 2003. aasta kirjas kaebuse esitajale teavet, mida viimane oli palunud oma kirjas punktide a) ja c) all, nimelt ametinimetuste, teaduskraadide ja ametialase kogemuse hindamise kriteeriumid, ning tegi talle teatavaks punktid, mida kaebuse esitaja vastava kalkulatsiooni alusel oli kogunud (14,64/40).
The Commission undertook to initiate the payment of interest for the period from 6 February 2003 to 21 July 2003.
Lisaks teatati kaebuse esitajale, et viimane aktsepteeritud kandidaat sai punkte 32/40.
1.3 The complainant confirms that Stockholm University has received the final payment, that the payment of interest is underway and that he is therefore satisfied. ed.
1.3 Eespool toodust selgub, et kaebuse esitaja sai kogu nõutud teabe.
1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to se le the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Seega näib, et kontrollikoda on kaebuse selle aspekti lahendanud kaebuse esitajale vastuvõetaval viisil.