natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Parliament also points out that according to firmly established case law, it is not required to conduct inquiries with a view to verify whether the applicants meet all the conditions in the contract notice.
Europaparlamentet a ande kommi rekryteringsmeddelandet asom styrkte utbildning, yrkeserfarenhet och nuv
ANINQUIRY stemming from European citizenship5 and that good administration includes, as the complainant points out, the requirement to be service-minded.6 In considering the application of the principles
5och aaltning, liksom , omfa ar kravet a vara serviceinriktad.6 I sin granskning av hur principerna rekryteringen erna, samt av garantera a
In these circumstances, for Parliament to ask a candidate for more documentation could be inequality of treatment as regards, for instance, those candidates who complied with the notice of competition.
Enligt agningskommi én med kommi én skall kunna kontrollera agningsmeddelandet.7a a garantera auppfyller u agningskommi samtliga dessa villkor.8u agningsmeddelandet.9
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament.
U agning s kommi I det aktuella fallet angavs det i u agningsmeddelandet a erligare agningsmeddelandet.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Ombudsmannen a altningssed och firesultat kan klagandens yrkande inte bifallas.
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
6 altningssed som antogs av Europaparlamentet genom dess resolution C5ebbplats: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
See e.g. Case 225/87, Patricia Belardinelli and others v. Court of Justice of the European Communities [1989] ECR 2353, paragraph 24, and Case T-133/89, Jean-Louis Burban v. European Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paragraph 34.
225/87, Patricia Belardinelli och andra mot EG-domstolen [1989] ECR 2353, punkt Jean-Louis Burban mot Europaparlamentet [1990] ECR II-245, punkt 34.
3.1.2 The Council of the European Union
3.1.2 Europeiska unionens
Decision on complaint 1795/2002/IJH as it relates to the Council of the European Union
Beslut i klagomål 1795/2002/IJH mot Europeiska unionens råd
In October 2002, Mr V. made a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) against the European Convention and the Council of the European Union.
I oktober 2002 ingav V. e ar riktat mot Europeiska konventet och Europeiska unionens
The Council did not reply within the 15 days laid down by Regulation 1049/2001.
I maj i konvarade inte inom de 15 dagar som anges i (EG) nr 1049/2001. Den 19 juni ande arade den 12 juli 2002.
The reply stated, amongst other things, that the European Convention is a body distinct from the Council; that its documents are outside the scope of application of Regulation 1049/2001; and that the General Secretariat had forwarded the application to the Secretariat of the European Convention.
I svaret uppgavs bland annat a Europeiska konventet dess handlingar inte omfasamt ageneralsekretariatet hade vidarebefordrat klagandens entets sekretariat.
The Council’s opinion
UNDERSÖKNINGEN rande
As regards the allegation of delay in replying to the complainant and failure to inform of rights of appeal, the Council pointed out that the complainant’s original request was sent by email on 29 April 2002.
Äv entets arbete fortskrider askickades via e-post den 29 april enbart informera klaganden om ainte arande handlingarna, vilket skulle ha tvingat klaganden a skicka en ny entets sekretariat.
In the present case such a reference would not have made sense, since the complainant was informed that the Council does not hold the documents.
Generalsekretariatets datorsystem skickade en automatisk mo else till klaganden som sv a automatiska sv en ae ersom klaganden informerades om aer handlingarna.
Suggesting that a confirmatory application in the Council could possibly lead to another conclusion would have been misleading.
Det skulle ha varit vilseledande a antyda aentuellt skulle kunna leda till eannat resultat.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN sv upplysa klaganden om se till a denna administrativ
The complainant accepts that the Council took a pragmatic approach in forwarding the complaint to the Convention Secretariat and that the Council Secretariat’s responded promptly in accordance with Article 7 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Klaganden accepterar atill konventets sekretariat och anser a(EG) nr klaganden ahan noterar och uppskaundvika a de a upprepas.
It would have been helpful, however, if the Council had sent a copy to the complainant.
ECAS arbetar med a vikt aden 7 mars igheter. I etelefonsamtal med ombudsmannens kansli denne v ar.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e i sisv se till a denna administrativ
The allegation that the documents are in the Council’s possession
Påståendet a rådet förfogar över handlingarna
LIFE PROGRAMME: COMMISSION’S REFUSAL TO COMPLETE PAYMENT OF A PROJECT
LIFE-PROGRAMMET: KOMMISSIONENS VÄGRAN ATT FULLGÖRA BETALNING AV ETT PROJEKT
Decision on complaint 1826/2001/JMA against the European Commission
Beslut i klagomål 1826/2001/JMA mot Europeiska kommissionen
In October and November 1997, the complainant held several discussions with the Commission services concerning how the project’s budget should reflect the expenses incurred by individual forestry owners.
I oktober och november 1997 diskuterade klaganden vid flhur de utgiav dessa diskussioner blev e beslut om a defi standardavtal.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e konsekvenserna av deras arbete.
In the course of the conversation, Mr dB insisted that for the sake of efficiency, future contacts be made directly with him, and always by telephone.
E er aha mo agit de alla framtida kontakter skulle ske direkt med honom och alltid per telefon, e ersom de a skulle vara effektivast. ektivast.
In June 1999, Mr dB phoned the complainant and requested that the expenses linked to the forestry owners’ work be consolidated and treated as external assistance.
I februari 1999 skickade klaganden in projektets delrapport.
Despite the complainant’s initial reluctance to alter the agreed financial criteria, he was obliged to accept the changes as a condition for the release of the intermediate payment.
I denna delrapport redovisades de kommissionen i oktober och november 1997. I juni a de utgi rots a ar motvillig a erenskommits, var han tvungen adelbetalning skulle ske.
In October 1999, the complainant delivered the new version of the report to the Commission by hand.
I oktober a versionen av rapporten till kommissionen.
The Commission made the intermediate payment in April 2000.
Kommissionen effektuerade delbetalningen i april 2000.
Upon the receipt of the complainant’s reply, the institution sent him a fax dated 30 January 2001 questioning the way in which costs incurred by forestry owners had been reflected, and claiming their reimbursement.
Sedan kommissionen mo agit klagandens svar skickade den efaxmeddelande till klaganden den 30 januari e kommissionen redovisningen av de utgi
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN ar, e i sia ar och kommissionens fi nansiella enheter v a klaganden.
Their involvement in the project required therefore a prior amendment of the Decision and the Commission’s approval of the new relationship.
Varken i kommissionens beslut om a involvera en a ny
Although the complainant faxed on 30 October 1997 a dra agreement aimed at governing CTFC’s working relationship with forestry owners, the document was never formally submi ed for approval to the Commission, as required by the Decision.
Trots a klaganden den 30 oktober 1997 via fax skickade e reglera CTFC:s
2 and 3 of the Decision’s Annex 2.
Kommissionen uppgav aaupplystes klaganden dessutom om a s i artiklarna 2 och 3 i bilaga 2 till Beslutet.
Commission stressed that the provisions of Art. 3 (3) of the Decision are clear and unconditional.
Kommissionen uppgav a klaganden inte hade kunnat visa a de utgi er som tredje part, dvs. 867 euro) v3.4 kassafl s.
On 25 October 2000, the Commission requested additional information, which was forwarded by the complainant on 13 November 2000.
Den 25 oktober klaganden den 13 november erligare information, som skickades in av den ny faxmeddelande av den 30 januari 2001 a den del av bidraget som motsvarade dessa utgibidraget som redan hade betalats ut (37 040
Since he was unable to provide any further evidence, the Commission confirmed its previous stand on 26 April 2001.
E ersom ade kommissionen sin tidigare a styrkande uppgi er april
In his observations of 30 July 2002, the complainant repeated the allegations made in his complaint.
I sina kommentarer av den 30 juli erna hade diskuterats grundligt med kommissionen.
The complainant explained that the need for forestry owners to get involved in the work of the project had been reflected in three different chapters of CTFC’s initial proposal, namely in section A13/4 (section on reforestation of the project’s summary); section A14/7 (plant growing) and in several economic sections (A5, A6, A9 and A11).
A13/4 (avsni era av de ekonomiska avsni en (A5, avsnii projektsammanfa ningen), avsni A14/7 ( v A6, A9 och A11).
In agreement with the responsible Commission services it was decided to opt for the second option in which no cash flows were to be reflected. The faxes sent on 30 October 1997 and on 4 November 1997 illustrated this fact.
ande redovisningen av de kostnader v ka uppgierenskommelse med kommissionen beslutade man a v den andra modellen, enligt vilken inga penningflav de faxmeddelanden som skickades den 30 oktober 1997 och den 4 november 1997. Klaganden redovisa tredje parts utgi er
On 16, 22, 29, 30 and 31 October 2002, the complainant forwarded additional information concerning meetings held with Commission officials which, in his view, supported his allegations.
Den 16, 22, 29, 30 och 31 oktober 2002 skickade klaganden y erligare information avseende , styrkte hans
In view of the observations submi ed by the complainant, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission on 31 October 2002.
YTTERLIGARE UNDERSÖKNINGAR else till kommissionen den 31 oktober 2002.
The Commission’s second opinion
I sin skrivuppgikommissionen a yer uppgi erna.
The Commission referred to the faxes sent by the complainant to its services on 30 October and 4 November1997, suggesting modifications to the financial convention.
Kommissionens andra y rande a are sig i den 30 oktober och den 4 november de endast hade skickats som information.
For this reason, the Commission had decided to proceed with a recovery order for € 30.429, in application of Art. 3.3c of the Grant Decision.
Kommissionen konstaterade aoch aar vborde klaganden ha vetat a kommissionens delbetalning innebar e ande den ekonomiska redovisningen.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Kommissionen tillade a om v
The complainant’s observations on the Commission’s second opinion
Klagandens kommentarer beträffande kommissionens andra y rande
In his observations on the Commission’s second opinion dated 20 December 2002 and 10 January 2003, the complainant insisted that the format of the financial section of his reports had arisen from suggestions from the Commission services, which had not later on expressed any formal disagreement.
I sina kommentarer till kommissionens andra y rande av den 20 december 2002 och den 10 januari den ekonomiska delen av hans rapporter hade utformats
The complainant expressed his willingness to testify before the Ombudsman, if necessary.
. antal e Äv formella usade sig vara beredd a vid behov vi agaren
The complainant enclosed different documents, which showed that the Commission had accepted, at least as regards LIFE project 97/ENV/E/260, the use of bilateral agreements between the beneficiary and several subcontractors in which no cash flows took place.
Klaganden bifogade olika dokument som visade aprojektet 97/ENV/E/260, hade accepterat anvoch fl er olika underlev redovisades.
He requested the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure, in order to ensure that a fair solution should be reached and that CTFC is not unjustly penalised.
Avslutningsvis uppgav klaganden aekonomiska del i linje med kommissionens krav se till a
1.2 The Commission argues that its services could not possibly have induced the complainant to believe he could disregard the rules of the project.
Klaganden a kommissionen vilsele honom och a han inte fi utgi erna hade diskuterats grundligt med kommissionen.
The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there is no maladministration by the Commission as regards this aspect of the case.
1.3 Ombudsmannen konstaterar aklaganden har skickat in estort antal handlingar som speglar hans kontinuerliga kontakter med kommissionen.
The Commission’s procedure for the reimbursement of part of the assistance
Kommissionens förfarande för återbetalning av en del av bidraget a
2.1 The complainant alleges that the procedure followed by the Commission for the handling of his project was unclear and did not comply with the applicable rules.
2.1 Klaganden oklara och aoch a ar inte har respekterats bli
2.2 The Commission argues that the procedure followed by its services in this process was consistent with the applicable rules (Art 7 of Annex 2 of the decision granting financial assistance to the project [the Decision]).
2.2 regler (artikel 7 i bilaga 2 till beslutet om a bevilja ekonomiskt bidrag till projektet [Beslutet]).
It explained that its first request of 30 January 2001 allowed the complainant to have his views heard before a final decision was to be adopted, and also that its final request of 30 August 2001 included information on the means of appeal.
Den januari slutligt beslut fa ades, samt aet en omfa erklaga beslutet.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
10, samt i kommissionens olika
The procedure to be followed by the Commission in cases of undue payment is laid down in Art. 11 (2) of Regulation 1973/92, which reads as follows,
(EEG) 1973/92 beslut om a bevilja bidrag till enskilda projekt.
“ [...] if only part of the allocated financial assistance is justified by the progress in implementation of an action, the Commission shall request the beneficiary to submit its observations within a specified period.
”Om tidsfristerna inte har hållits eller om endast en del av det tilldelade ekonomiska stödet är berä igat med hänsyn till genomförandet av en åtgärd, skall kommissionen anmoda stödmo agaren a y ra sig inom en viss tid.
If the beneficiary does not give a satisfactory answer, the Commission may cancel the remaining financial assistance and demand repayment of sums already paid.”
Om stödmo agaren inte ger en tillfredsställande förklaring kan kommissionen vägra utbetalning av det resterande ekonomiska stödet och kräva återbetalning av tidigare utbetalda belopp.”
Art. 7 of Annex 2 of the Decision reproduces identical procedural requirements.
I artikel 7 i bilaga 2 till Beslutet anges e
The final debit note was sent to the complainant on 6 March 2001.
2.4 januari 2001, uppgav aemeddelande skulle februari 2001.
Even though the note did not mention any possible means of appeal, the Commission referred to these means in its further correspondence with the complainant dated 30 August 2001.
De a skulle ge skicka in si y rande i enlighet med artikel Slutfakturan skickades till klaganden den 6 mars 2001. Äv er si
Commission’s request for reimbursement of part of the funds
P grundval av ov kommissionen altningen av de a projekt har v
The institution pointed out that the complainant had not been able to show that the expenses incurred by third party forestry owners had in fact been disbursed.
I si y rande motiverade kommissionen si klaganden klaganden inte hade kunnat visa a tredje part, dvs.
On 30 October and 4 November 1997, the complainant formally notified the Commission services of the forthcoming participation of third party forestry owners in the implementation of the project.
30 oktober och den 4 november 1997 meddelade klaganden kommissionen formellt ai egenskap av tredje part skulle komma akonstaterar a kommissionen inte har kunnat styrka aklagandens initiativ.
3.4 In its reply to the Ombudsman’s further inquiries, the Commission underlined its willingness to consider paying the costs claimed by the complainant, and thus to halt its recovery order, provided that he submit evidence that costs incurred by third party property owners were effectively incurred.
3.4 I sisvar beredvillighet a ombudsmannens yerva a de kostnader som klaganden uppgav, och a de kostnader som tredje part hade erkligen hade ersa erv a anser ombudsmannen inte a det fi driv
3.5 The complainant has asked the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure.
3.5 erv inge e ny till ombudsmannen i framtiden, om han skulle anse det befogat.
ANNULMENT OF QUESTIONS AND ALLEGED FAILURE TO RESPECT COMPETITION NOTICE
ANNULLERINGAV FRÅGOR OCH PÅSTÅDD UNDERLÅTENHET ATT FÖLJA ETT MEDDELANDE OM UTTAGNINGSPROV
Decision on complaint 647/2002/OV against the European Commission
Beslut i klagomål 647/2002/OV mot Europeiska kommissionen agningsprovet alsproverklagade tvtill urvalskommi én: den 10 januari prov och den 11 februari ningsmetoden.
The complainant participated in open competition COM/A/6/01 but did not pass preselection test b) where he obtained only 16.842/40.
Genom a b) hade urvalskommi én a
The Selection Board decided to annul three questions of the preselection test.
Urvalskommi én motiverade inte sisv en hans sv
3 the complainant alleges that the Selection Board did not respect the conditions of point VI.D of the competition notice, as he obtained information that a number of candidates who did not obtain the minimum marks on the preselection tests were nevertheless included in the list of 600 candidates foreseen by the competition notice.
Urvalskommi én respekterade inte villkoren i punkt VI.D i meddelandet om u agningsprov, information om a e alsprovet trots de s i meddelandet om u agningsprov.
By le er of 14 December 2001, the unit Admin.A.2 informed the complainant of the results of the preselection tests.
I en skrivelse av den 14 december 2001 meddelade enheten alsproven.
As the complainant obtained 16,842 out of 40 for test b) concerning verbal and numerical reasoning, and the minimum required mark was 20, the Selection Board did not proceed with the correction of his wri en test, in accordance with point VI.D of the competition notice according to which every mark below the minimum mark is eliminatory.
Eb), erbal och numerisk analys, och kravar 20 alskommi én ningen av hans prov i enlighet med punkt VI.D i meddelandet om u agningsprov den
Further to his request of 18 December 2001, the complainant was provided with a copy of his optical answer sheet and of the sheet with the correct answers of the preselection tests.
Edecember 2001 fi ck han en kopia av sin optiska svarsblanke och av blanke en med de korrekta svalsproven.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e ens13 och EG-domstolens14 besv a v
According to this case law, the candidates are supposed to answer all questions and not only to those questions which they would like to choose. The number and the contents of the questions for which an answer is necessary are therefore identical for all candidates.
det inte hade ske a urval s kommi ar kommissionen aurvalskommi ar, men abeslutet om urvalskommi én inte hade respekterat punkt VI.D i samtliga villkor i meddelandet om meddelandet om uu agningsprov hade respekterats och a de skrivna prov et som helhet, e er det a det alsprov ats.
The number of candidates who obtained the minimum required marks for the preselection test of field 02 of the competition was superior to the 600 candidates foreseen in the competition notice.
alsprov02 i u agningsprovet vangavs i meddelandet om u agningsprov.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN e hade avge efelaktigt svarkorrekt svar.
The complainant wants to know why his answer was not correct.
Klaganden vill veta var inte var korrekt.
As regards the third allegation, the complainant wants the Ombudsman to check that the Selection Board did respect point VI.D of the competition notice, by asking from the Commission the list of the candidates (and their results) who have passed all the preselection tests.
ombudsmannen skulle kontrollera aurvalskommi én verkligen respekterade punkt VI.D i meddelandet om u agningsprov genom a alsprov.
A er having considered the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary to help take a decision on the third allegation of the complainant.
Sedan ombudsmannen granskat kommissionens ysom om y kunna fa a e beslut om klagandens tredje alskommi , inte ha respekterat villkoren i punkt VI.D i meddelandet om u agningsprov, e ersom eantal alsprov02, trots de a
Decisions following an inquiry carried out by the Ombudsman’s staff on 24 January 2003 in the Commission’s premises in Brussels (DG ADMIN).
Beslut e januari 2003 i kommissionens lokaler i Bryssel (GD ADMIN).
The annulment of questions of the preselection test
Annulleringen av frågor i det preliminära urvalsprovet
1.1 The complainant alleges that by annulling questions 9 and 37 of test b), the Selection Board did not respect the principle of equality between the candidates.
Klaganden a urvalskommi én inte respekterade principen om lika behandling av genom a annullera dessa besvarat dem fel.
On the basis of the evidence submi ed to him, the Ombudsman takes the view that there is nothing to suggest that this condition was not complied with in the present case, given that the Commission appears to have eliminated questions 9 and 37 of test b) for all the candidates.
I si prov verkar oklar, a man garanterar a ning aerkas negativt. P grundval av den det inte fi ersom kommissionen verkar ha annullerat de
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN a
The alleged failure to reason its reply to complainant’s claim
Påstådd underlåtenhet a motivera svaret på klagandens begäran aurvalskommi én inte motiverade sisv
2.2 The Commission observes that the Selection Board examined the complainant’s answers, but that this did not allow to change its decision on the marks.
Kommissionen a urvalskommi én hade granskat klagandens svar, men a de a ande
No instance of maladministration was therefore found with regard to this aspect of the case.
15, anser éns beslut ombudsmannen a urvalskommi
The alleged infringement of the competition notice
Påstådd överträdelse av meddelandet om u agningsprov
3.1 The complainant alleges that the Selection Board did not respect the conditions of point VI.D of the competition notice, as he obtained information that a number of candidates who did not obtain the minimum marks on the preselection tests of field 02 were nevertheless included in the list of 600 candidates foreseen by the competition notice.
3.1 Klaganden a urvalskommi én inte respekterade villkoren i punkt VI.D i meddelandet om u agningsprov, e ersom han fi ck information om a ealsprov02 trots de s i meddelandet om u agningsprov.
3.3 With regard to this allegation, the Ombudsman offi ce has inspected the Commission’s fi le on 24 January 2003.
I anslutning till de januari 2003.
During the inspection, the Commission officials first informed the Ombudsman’s offi ce that a corrigendum to the competition notice had been published in the Official Journal of 17 October 2001 (C 291 A) in which the numbers of the lists of successful candidates were amended.
Under granskningen informerade kommissionens en else till meddelandet om u agningsprov hade off entliggjorts i EGT den 17 oktober 2001 (C 291
As for point VI.D.1 of the competition notice, the number was amended from 510 to 600 candidates who had obtained the best marks on preselection tests a), b) c) and d).
510 till 600.
Decision on complaint 659/2002/IP against the European Commission
Beslut i klagomål 659/2002/IP mot Europeiska kommissionen
The question whether a post has been unofficially reserved for a “native speaker” has to be evaluated by the competent court in each individual case.
I si y ningsvis ciellt eller inoffi ciellt reserv ciellt har reserv arje enskilt fall.