natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
OLAF’s investigation in the present case failed to comply with the principles of good administration. Furthermore, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for OLAF to conclude that the information available to it did not demonstrate the existence of irregularities falling within OLAF’s competence.
Veelgi enam, ombudsmani arvates toimis OLAF õigesti, järeldades olemasoleva informatsiooni põhjal, et OLAF-i pädevusalas eeskirjade eiramist ei toimunud.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Seega ombudsman kaebuse selle aspekti osas halduslikku omavoli ei tuvastanud.
2.1 The complainant alleges that OLAF never informed her of the outcome of its inquiry.
2.1 Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et OLAF ei teavitanud teda uurimise tulemustest.
She claims that OLAF should inform her whether it conducted an inquiry and of the result.
Ta väitis, et OLAF oli kohustatud teda teavitama, kas uurimine viidi läbi ja milline oli selle tulemus.
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce OJ L 136/1 of 31.5.1999.
Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 25. mai 1999 määrus (EÜ) nr 1073/1999 Euroopa Pe ustevastase Ameti juurdluste kohta EÜT L 136/1 of 31.5.1999.
Decisions following an inquiry or the Member States whose functions require them to know.
2.2 OLAF väitis, et määruses 1073/1999 on sätestatud, keda tuleb OLAF-i juurdlustulemustest teavitada.
On 12 July 2002, the complainant sent a note to OLAF requesting to be informed as to the outcome of the investigation.
12. juulil 2002 saatis kaebuse esitaja OLAF-ile teatise, milles palus enda teavitamist juurdluse tulemustest.
2.3 The Ombudsman points out that OLAF annexed a copy of the final case report to its opinion on the complaint, in the knowledge that the opinion and its annexes would be forwarded to the complainant as part of the Ombudsman’s normal inquiry procedure.
2.3 Ombudsman juhtis tähelepanu sellele, et OLAF lisas juurdluse aruande kaebust puudutavale arvamusele teadmises, et arvamus ja selle lisad edastatakse kaebuse esitajale ombudsmani tavapärase uurimismenetluse käigus.
The Ombudsman does not therefore understand OLAF to argue that the provisions of Regulation 1073/1999 prevented it from communicating the results of its investigation to the complainant.
Seetõ u ei mõistnud ombudsman, miks OLAF väitis, et määruse 1073/1999 sä ed takistasid juurdlustulemuste edastamist kaebuse esitajale.
The Ombudsman concludes that OLAF has taken appropriate action to se le this aspect of the complaint, by informing the complainant of the results of its investigation during the Ombudsman’s inquiry.
Ombudsman leidis, et OLAF võ is kaebuse nimetatud aspekti lahendamiseks kasutusele asjakohased meetmed, teavitades kaebuse esitajat juurdluse tulemustest ombudsmani läbiviidud uurimise ajal.
No further inquiries by the Ombudsman are therefore necessary.
Seega polnud ombudsmanil vaja uurimist jätkata.
The claim to be informed of the interservice consultation
Nõue saada teavet teenistustevaheliste konsultatsioonide kohta
3.1 The complainant claims that OLAF should inform her whether the OLAF unit which replied to the interservice consultation before the project was approved at the beginning of the year 2002 was aware of her complaint.
3.1 Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et OLAF oli kohustatud teavitama teda sellest, kas OLAF-i üksus, mis vastutas 2002. aasta alguses enne projekti heakskiitmist teenistustevaheliste konsultatsioonide eest, oli tema kaebusest teadlik.
3.2 According to OLAF, it has no record of having been consulted as part of an interservice consultation on this project.
3.2 OLAF-i väitel polnud tal dokumente selle kohta, et temaga oleks teenistuste vaheliste konsultatsioonide raames vastava projekti asjus konsulteeritud.
However, the Director General of DG RTD sent a le er to the Director General of OLAF, explaining that he would propose financing of the project to the Commission, absent advice to the contrary.
Ent teaduse ja tehnoloogiaarenduse peadirektoraadi peadirektor saatis OLAF-i peadirektorile kirja, milles teatas, et vastupidiste nõuannete puudumisel kavatseb ta teha komisjonile e epaneku projekti rahastamise jätkamise kohta.
The Director General of OLAF replied that the investigation was still ongoing, but that the information in OLAF’s possession at that time did not suggest a reason for advising against continued financing for the project.
OLAF-i peadirektor vastas, et juurdlus alles käib, kuid sel hetkel OLAF-i käsutuses oleva teabe põhjal pole põhjust projekti rahastamist lõpetada.
3.3 The Ombudsman considers that OLAF’s opinion provides the information claimed by the complainant and that no further inquiries by the Ombudsman are therefore necessary.
3.3 Ombudsman leidis, et OLAF-i arvamus sisaldas kaebuse esitaja nõutud teavet ning seega pole ombudsmanil vaja uurimist jätkata.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce.
Käesoleva kaebuse osas ombudsmani poolt läbiviidud uurimine selgitas, et Euroopa Pe ustevastane Amet polnud halduslikku omavoli kasutanud.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Seega lõpetas ombudsman asja menetlemise.
3.1.8 The European Agency for Reconstruction
3.1.8 Euroopa Ülesehitusamet
CONSULTANCY WORK FOR THE EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR RECONSTRUCTION
NÕUSTAMISTEENUS EUROOPA ÜLESEHITUSAMETILE
Decision on complaint 1141/2002/GG (Confidential) against the European Agency for Reconstruction
Otsus Euroopa Ülesehitusameti vastu esitatud kaebuse 1141/2002/GG (konfidentsiaalne) asjas
According to the complaint lodged in June 2002, the complainant, a German national, worked as a consultant in Kosovo on the basis of two contracts.
Juunis 2002 esitatud kaebuse kohaselt töötas Saksamaa kodanikust kaebuse esitaja Kosovos konsultandina kahe lepingu alusel.
Decisions following an inquiry complainant and the European Commission on 26 January 2000.
Lepingule kirjutasid kaebuse esitaja ja Euroopa Komisjon alla 26. jaanuaril 2000.
According to Article 5 of the contract, the complainant was to be paid a remuneration of up to 196.970 € for his services.
Lepingu artikli 5 kohaselt pidi kaebuse esitaja saama tasuks osutatud teenuste eest kuni 196 970 eurot.
Article 6 (1) of the contract provided that payments were to be made “when the Services have been performed to the satisfaction of the contracting Authority”.
Lepingu artikli 6 lõikes 1 sätestati, et makseid tehakse ”kui teenused on osutatud tellijale vastuvõetaval viisil”.
Article 6 (2) stipulated that the remuneration was to be paid in quarterly instalments “upon submission of an invoice and approval by the Contracting Authority of the required reports and work as defined in the Terms of Reference.
Artikli 6 lõikes 2 sätestati, et töötasu makstakse kvartalimaksetena ”arve esitamisel ja kui tellija on suunistes nõutud aruanded ning töö heaks kiitnud.
The last payment (balance) shall be paid within 60 days of the Contracting Authority acceptance of the final report.”
Viimane makse (jääksumma) makstakse 60 päeva jooksul pärast seda, kui tellija on lõpparuande vastu võtnud.”
According to Addendum no. 1 to this contract that was subsequently signed by the complainant and the European Agency for Reconstruction (that appears to have taken over the contract from the Commission), the maximum remuneration was increased to 268.090 €.
Lepingu 1. addendum’i kohaselt kirjutasid sellele hiljem alla kaebuse esitaja ja Euroopa Ülesehitusamet (ilmnes, et viimane võ is lepingu komisjonilt üle) ning maksimaalset saadavat töötasu suurendati 268 090 eurole.
On 12 July 2001, the complainant submi ed a request for a final payment amounting to 59.387 € to the Agency.
12. juulil 2001 esitas kaebuse esitaja ametile taotluse lõppmakseks summas 59 387 eurot.
According to the complainant, there was a dispute as to how and by whom one of the complainant’s assistants was to be paid which concerned a total sum of approximately 5000 €.
Kaebuse esitaja sõnul tekkis vaidlus, kuidas ja kes peaks maksma ühele kaebuse esitaja assistentidest, kusjuures vaidlusalune summa oli umbes 5000 eurot.
The complainant alleged that for reasons unknown and never communicated to him the Agency had decided to bring this case to the a ention of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF), using this procedure in order to withhold the remainder of the undisputed and due payment of nearly 50.000 €.
Kaebuse esitaja väitel otsustas amet temale mist e teada olnud ja temale ka mist e teatavakstehtud põhjustel juhtida asjale Euroopa Pe ustevastase Ameti (OLAF) tähelepanu, kasutades seda asjaolu e ekäändena ülejäänut ja vaidluse alla mist ekuuluvat summa, mis küündis peaaegu 50 000 euroni, välja maksmata jätmiseks.
The second contract (“Supervisory Board Expert at Pristina – 99/KOS04/03/016”) was signed by the complainant and the Agency on 1 August 2001.
Teisele lepingule (”Järelevalvenõukogu ekspert Pristinas – 99/KOS04/03/016”) kirjutasid kaebuse esitaja ja amet alla 1. augustil 2001.
According to Article 3 of the contract, the maximum contract value was to be 70.500 €.
Lepingu artikli 3 kohaselt pidi maksimaalseks lepingusummaks olema 70 500 eurot.
On 28 February 2002, the complainant requested the Agency to make a second interim payment of 19.387 € and a final payment of 7050 €.
28. veebruaril 2002 taotles kaebuse esitaja ametilt teise vahearvelduse tegemist summas 19 387 eurot ning lõppmakse tegemist summas 7050 eurot.
According to the complainant, there was a dispute about the number of days that he worked which concerned a sum of approximately 8000 €.
Kaebuse esitaja sõnul tekkis vaidlus töötatud päevade arvu üle, mis puudutas umbes 8000 euro suurust summat.
The complainant claims that the Agency should quickly finalise its review of his invoices and pay the relevant sums.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis, et amet lõpetaks kiiresti tema arve menetlemise ning maksaks kaebuse esitajale nimetatud summa.
The Agency’s opinion
Ameti arvamus
In its opinion, the European Agency for Reconstruction made the following comments:
Oma arvamuses andis Euroopa Ülesehitusamet järgmisi selgitusi:
The Agency had suspended payments on the two contracts concerned due to identified anomalies regarding the presentation of the invoices.
Amet peatas kahe asjaomase lepingu järgsed maksed, sest arvete esitamisel esines kõrvalekaldeid.
To date, the Agency had not received satisfactory answers from the complainant to queries that the Agency had put to him.
Siiani polnud amet saanud kaebuse esitajalt talle esitatud järelepärimistele rahuldavat vastust.
On the contrary, the Agency had received from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and more particularly from the la er’s EU Pillar (the section of the UN administration where the complainant was engaged), information that had given cause for suspicion about possible fraudulent intentions of the complainant.
Seevastu sai amet ÜRO ajutiselt missioonilt Kosovos (UNMIK), täpsemalt selle EL sambalt (ÜRO administratsiooni sellelt sektsioonilt, millega kaebuse esitaja seotud oli), informatsiooni, mis andis alust kahtlustada kaebuse esitajat pe uses.
The information had related to irregularities that had been of such a nature that the Agency had decided to forward this case to OLAF.
Informatsioon puudutas seda laadi eeskirjade eiramisi, mis andsid ametile alust edastada asi OLAF-ile.
A copy of the Agency’s le er to OLAF of 12 December 2001 (without its enclosures) that summarised the questions concerning the perceived irregularities was annexed to the Agency’s opinion.
Ameti arvamusele oli lisatud koopia ameti 12. detsembri 2001. aasta kirjast OLAF-ile (ilma lisadeta), mis sisaldas kokkuvõtet nimetatud eeskirjade eiramisest.
During its own investigation, OLAF had discovered other irregularities that potentially related to the complainant’s activities in Kosovo, and these irregularities might have occurred whilst he had been under contract with the Agency.
Juurdluse käigus avastas OLAF veel muid eeskirjade eiramisi, mis olid potentsiaalselt seotud kaebuse esitaja tegevusega Kosovos ning mis võisid leida aset ajal, mil kaebuse esitaja oli seotud ametiga sõlmitud lepingutega.
These other serious irregularities related to a transfer of about 4.500.000 € to a bank account in Gibraltar.
Nimetatud muud tõsised eeskirjade eiramised puudutasid 4 500 000 euro ülekandmist pangaarvele Gibraltaril.
This transfer had been related to a payment being made for the export of electricity from Kosovo to Serbia.
Ülekanne oli seotud maksega, mis tehti elektrienergia ekspordiks Kosovost Serbiasse.
The complainant had been managing the export procedure on behalf of UNMIK.
Kaebuse esitaja oli olnud UNMIK esindajana vastutav ekspordiprotseduuride eest.
Furthermore, there was some doubt with regard to the complainant’s academic qualifications, which were currently being checked by OLAF in conjunction with UNMIK.
Lisaks ilmnesid ka teatud kahtlused seoses kaebuse esitaja akadeemilise kvalifikatsiooniga, mida OLAF koos UNMIK-iga kontrollis.
Agency, had consequently decided on 14 July47
Ameti juurde täisajaga määratud Euroopa Komisjoni fi nantskontrolör otsustas seepeale 14. juulil47
2002 to suspend payments on both contracts.
2002 peatada mõlema lepingu järgsed väljamaksed.
The outstanding amounts would therefore remain withheld until the Agency and the Financial Controller had received the conclusions of OLAF that had opened an external investigation into the above-mentioned contracts on 1 February 2002.
Seega otsustati maksmata summasid kinni pidada seni, kuni amet ja fi nantskontrolör saavad juurdlustulemused OLAF-ilt, mis oli 1. veebruaril 2002 algatanud eelnimetatud lepingute osas välisjuurdluse.
The complainant had been informed, in an email sent on 12 October 2001, that his invoice would be put on hold until the queries had been resolved.
12. oktoobril 2001 teatati kaebuse esitajale e-postiga saadetud kirjas, et tema arve pannakse kuni probleemide lahenemiseni kõrvale.
On 10 July 2002, he had furthermore been informed that the Agency had requested an investigation by OLAF.
10. juulil 2002 informeeriti teda ka sellest, et amet oli palunud OLAF-il viia läbi juurdlus.
The Agency’s further le er
Veel üks ametilt saadud kiri
On 6 December 2002, the Agency forwarded a press release to the Ombudsman that had been published on 5 December 2002 by Mr Bearpark of UNMIK.
6. detsembril 2002 edastas amet ombudsmanile pressiteate, mille 5. detsembril 2002 oli avaldanud hr Bearpark UNMIK-st.
According to this press release, the complainant had been arrested in Germany on 4 December 2002 and the judicial process would now take its course.
Nimetatud pressiteate kohaselt arreteeriti kaebuse esitaja 4. detsembril 2002 Saksamaal ning algatatud oli kohtumenetlus.
No observations were received from the complainant.
Kaebuse esitaja oma seisukohti ei esitanud.
Introductory remark
Sissejuhatav kommentaar
1.1 The European Agency for Reconstruction annexed fi ve documents to its opinion in this case.
1.1 Euroopa Ülesehitusamet lisas käesolevat juhtumit puudutavale arvamusele viis dokumenti.
It subsequently informed the Ombudsman that the opinion of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF), the author of the documents contained in annexes 3 and 4 of the opinion, should be sought before disclosing these documents.
Seejärel teatas amet ombudsmanile, et enne nimetatud dokumentide avalikustamist tuleks taotleda vastavat luba Euroopa Pe ustevastaselt Ametilt (OLAF), kes on arvamuse lisas 3 ja 4 sisalduvate dokumentide autor.
1.2 The Ombudsman therefore wrote to the Agency and asked it to clarify the ma er by 23 November 2002, pointing out that if the relevant documents were to be treated as confidential they would be returned to the Agency and could not be used in the present inquiry.
1.2 Seepeale palus ombudsman kirja teel ametit tuua asjasse selgust 23. novembriks 2002, rõhutades, et kui asjaomased dokumendid loetakse salajasteks, tagastatakse need ametile ning neid ei saa käimasolevas uurimises kasutada.
On 20 November 2002, the Agency informed the Ombudsman that it was seeking confirmation from OLAF that the relevant documents were of a sensitive nature and could not be disclosed until OLAF’s investigations were finalised. finalised.
20. novembril 2002 teavitas amet ombudsmani, et taotleb OLAF-ilt kinnitust asjaomaste dokumentide salastatuse kohta ning neid ei tohi avalikustada enne OLAF-i poolse juurdluse lõppemist.
1.3 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman decided to return the relevant documents to the Agency.
1.3 Antud olukorras otsustas ombudsman asjaomased dokumendid ametile tagastada.
These documents will therefore not be considered in the present inquiry.
Seega käimasolevas uurimises nimetatud dokumentidega ei arvestatud.
Failure to process invoices and to pay outstanding amounts
Arve menetlematajätmine ning väljamaksmata summade tasumatajätmine
According to the complainant, the Agency had failed to finalise its review of his invoices (of 12 July 2001 and of 28 February 2002) and to pay the outstanding sums.
Kaebuse esitaja väite kohaselt ei menetlenud amet lõpuni tema esitatud arveid (12. juulist 2001 ning 28. veebruarist 2002) ega maksnud ära maksmata jäänud summasid.
The complainant alleged that he was still owed some 80.000 € by the Agency.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis, et amet oli talle endiselt võlgu umbes 80 000 eurot.
2.2 The Agency pointed out that payments on the two contracts concerned had been suspended due to identified anomalies regarding the presentation of the invoices and that no satisfactory answers from the complainant to the Agency’s queries had yet been received.
2.2 Amet rõhutas, et asjaomaste lepingute järgsed maksed peatati, sest arvete esitamises tuvastati kõrvalekaldumisi ning et amet polnud saanud kaebuse esitajalt talle esitatud järelepärimistele rahuldavat vastust.
According to the Agency, the la er furthermore received information from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) that gave cause for suspicion about possible fraudulent intentions of the complainant.
Ameti ütluse kohaselt sai ta ÜRO ajutiselt missioonilt Kosovos (UNMIK) teavet, mis andis põhjust kahtlustada kaebuse esitajat pe uses.
Still according to the Agency, the information related to irregularities that were of such a nature that the Agency decided to forward this case to the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF).
Ameti väitel puudutas informatsioon seda laadi eeskirjade eiramisi, et amet otsustas asja edastada Euroopa Pe ustevastasele Ametile (OLAF). 1. veebruaril 2002 algatas OLAF eespool nimetatud lepingute osas välisjuurdluse.
’July’ should probably read ’June’, since the document to which the Agency refers in this context is dated 14 June 2002.
“Juulil” asemel peab tõenäoliselt olema “juunil”, kuna dokument, millele amet siin viitab, on dateeritud 14. juunil 2002.
These other irregularities related to a transfer of about 4.500.000 € to a bank account in Gibraltar.
48 ja kaebuse esitaja vahel sõlmitud lepingutest tulenevaid
2.3 The present complaint concerns the obligations arising under contracts concluded between the Agency48 and the complainant.
2.3 Käesolev kaebus puudutab ametikohustusi.
2.4 According to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, the European Ombudsman is empowered to receive complaints “concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies”.
2.4 Vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artiklile 195 on Euroopa ombudsman volitatud vastu võtma kaebusi ”haldusliku omavoli juhtude kohta ühenduse institutsioonide või asutuste tegevuses”.
The Ombudsman considers that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle binding upon it49. Maladministration may thus also be found when the fulfilment of obligations arising from contracts concluded by the institutions or bodies of the Communities is concerned.
Ombudsman käsitab haldusliku omavolina juhtumeid, kus asutus ei toimi kooskõlas temale siduvate eeskirjade või põhimõtetega.49 Halduslikuks omavoliks võib seega pidada ka juhtumeid, kus on tegemist ühenduste institutsioonide või asutuste poolt sõlmitud lepingutest tulenevate kohustuste täitmisega.
2.5 However, the Ombudsman considers that the scope of the review that he can carry out in such cases is necessarily limited.
2.5 Ombudsman oli siiski arvamusel, et sellistel juhtudel on tema pädevuses oleva uurimise ulatus paratamatult piiratud.
In particular, the Ombudsman is of the view that he should not seek to determine whether there has been a breach of contract by either party, if the ma er is in dispute.
Ombudsman on eelkõige seisukohal, et ta ei peaks tegema kindlaks, kas lepingu pooled on lepingut rikkunud.
This question could be dealt with effectively only by a court of competent jurisdiction, which would have the possibility to hear the arguments of the parties concerning the relevant national law and to evaluate conflicting evidence on any disputed issues of fact.
Seda küsimust saab tõhusalt lahendada üksnes pädeva jurisdiktsiooniga kohus, kellel on võimalik ära kuulata poolte siseriiklikku õigust puudutavad argumendid ning hinnata vaidlusaluseid fakte puudutavaid vastuolulisi tõendeid.
2.6 The Ombudsman therefore takes the view that in cases concerning contractual disputes it is justified to limit his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified.
2.6 Ombudsman on seega seisukohal, et lepingulisi vaidlusi puudutavatel juhtudel on õigustatud, kui ta piirdub uurimisel vaid selle väljaselgitamisega, kas ühenduse institutsioon või asutus on andnud talle selgelt ja rahuldavalt aru oma tegevuse õigusliku aluse kohta ning selgitanud, miks ta usub, et tema seisukoht on õigustatud.
If that is the case, the Ombudsman will conclude that his inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration.
Eespool öeldust tulenevalt otsustab ombudsman, et uurimise käigus haldusliku omavoli juhtumit ei tuvastatud.
This conclusion will not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively se led by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Selline otsus ei mõjuta poolte õigust lasta vaidlusküsimust uurida ja lahendada pädeva jurisdiktsiooniga kohtul.
2.7 In the present case, the Agency has put forward a coherent and reasonable account of the reasons for which it believes that the complainant’s claims cannot be complied with for the time being.
2.7 Käesoleval juhul on amet andnud selgelt ja rahuldavalt aru põhjustest, miks tema arvates ei saa antud hetkel kaebuse esitaja nõuetele vastu tulla.
In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Agency.
Neist asjaoludest lähtudes ei tuvastatud ameti tegevuses halduslikku omavoli.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Agency for Reconstruction.
Selle kaebuse osas ombudsmani poolt läbiviidud uurimise põhjal Euroopa Ülesehitusameti tegevuses haldusliku omavoli juhtumit ei tuvastatud.
The first contract was originally concluded by the European Commission, but subsequently taken over by the Agency.
Esimese lepingu sõlmis alguses Euroopa Komisjon, kuid selle võ is üle Euroopa Ülesehitusamet.
See Annual Report 1997, pages 22 sequ.
Vt 1997. aasta aastaaruannet, lk 22 jj.
CASESSETTLED BY THEINSTITUTION
INSTITUTSIOONIDE POOLT LAHENDATUDJUHTUMID
3.2.1 The European Parliament
3.2.1 Euroopa Parlament
ALLEGED FAILURE TO STATE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF TRANSLATION BIDS
TÕLKETÖÖDELE TEHTUD HINNAPAKKUMISTE TAGASILÜKKAMISE VIDETAV PÕHJENDAMATATMINE
Decision on complaint 2024/2002/OV against the European Parliament
Otsus Euroopa Parlamendi vastu esitatud kaebuse 2024/2002/OV asjas
In November 2002, Mrs J. lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman on behalf of a Brussels based company concerning the rejection by the European Parliament of several bids for translation works.
Novembris 2002 esitas pr J Euroopa ombudsmanile Brüsselis asuva firma nimel kaebuse, mis puudutas Euroopa Parlamendi poolt tagasilükatud mitmeid hinnapakkumisi tõlketöödele.