natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2.1 The complainant alleged possible irregularities in the handling of the tender procedure. The complainant wants to be informed whether the evaluation was really based on unit prices.
I artikel 41 i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rä igheterna (Rä till god förvaltning) ingår vars och ens rä a bli hörd innan en enskild åtgärd som skulle beröra honom eller henne negativt vidtas mot honom eller henne.
2.2 The Commission argued that the contract was awarded in accordance with the procedural rules in force and that the Advisory Commi ee on Procurement and Contracts had delivered a favourable opinion.
På grundval av den bevisning som står till ombudsmannens förfogande verkar det som klaganden aldrig fi ck en möjlighet a u rycka sin åsikt om de påstådda fakta som utgjorde grunden för de disciplinära åtgärder som vidtogs mot honom.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the complainant’s claim to be informed had been met.
Enligt principerna för god förvaltningssed skall institutionerna besvara skrivelser från medborgarna68
This constituted an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman made a critical remark below.
De a utgör e fall av administrativt missförhållande.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
FELAKTIG INFORMATION I ETT UPPHANDLINGSFÖRFARANDE
This constituted an instance of maladministration.
Beslut i klagomål 1351/2001/(ME)(MF)BB mot Europeiska kommissionen ar klaganden projektansv
For the reasons set out in point 3.3 of the decision the Ombudsman considered that it was not possible for him to achieve a friendly solution in this case.
Den 5 juni ervav projekt (Tacis och Balkan), tillsammans med fyra andra poster.
Given that the critical remark concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue the ma er further.
Den 9 juli ”Integration GmbH” in eanbud avseende anbudsinfordran Europeaid 112404/C/SV (del 1) till
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Den 18 juni anbudsgivare, e al av enhetspris eller
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN totalpris. Den 20 juni 2001 svarade kommissionen klaganden a
Decision on complaint 221/2002/ME against the European Commission
” (punkt B i den elsen med rubriken ”Redovisning av kostnader och ekonomiskt erbjudande”).
The Commission argued that it had taken the complainant’s allegations very seriously, checked the evaluation and explained its standpoint to the complainant on several occasions.
han evav det offererade totalpriset och aen annan anbudsgivare hade tilldelats kontraktet e ersom ”.
The evaluation was based on the text of the Call, work programme and Evaluation Manual and the correct evaluation criteria had therefore been used.
Klaganden skrev er till kommissionen den 11 september 2001 och bad om e ck klaganden veta a denna hans andra skrivelse inte skulle besvaras. Kontraktet tilldelades en annan anbudsgiv
The Ombudsman recalled that principles of good administration require the Commission to provide accurate information to citizens.
al av totalpriset granskningsmetod resulterat i en felaktig rangordning av anbudsgivarna.
The Commission should therefore avoid presenting information in a form which is misleading or unnecessarily complex.
Om de a var fallet borde al av angivna enhetspriser.
Decisions following an inquiry references.
Beslut e
ALLEGED FAILURE TO TAKE A DECISION IN AN INFRINGEMENT COMPLAINT (ARTICLE 226 EC)
Klaganden kontaktade kommissionens olika enheter fl klagandens beteende kunde betraktas som e konfi k ra s enbart i sy e a det”.
THE COMPLAINT
”i den ligga till grund
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN borde han ha varit v
The origin of this complaint is a previous complaint to the Ombudsman (801/2000/(ME)PB) lodged by the complainant regarding the same ma er and closed on 8 June 2001.
Europeiska kommissionens ande kommi ningen ACPC) avgav e positivt yer kommissionens val den 19 september 2001.
In its answer to the allegation, the Commission stated that the reason for its delay in taking a final stand regarding the infringement complaint was a pending court case, the outcome of which it wished to await.
De a y rande intygade a den tekniska och ekonomiska v elsen till anbudsgivarna.
In his complaint, lodged in June 2002, the complainant alleges that the Commission has acted contrary to good administration by failing to take a stand on the issues raised by him in his infringement complaint.
Klaganden kontaktade kommissionens olika enheter flvar aentuella administrative ervakning av Tacis.
1 The first issue concerns cross-border long-term leasing of vehicles, which are registered in Germany but with an intended use in Denmark.
Det v ande ervakning som gjorde a de ervakning (delarna 2-5) var erv ade kommissionen.
The Court of Justice delivered its judgement on 21 March 2002. The Commission will soon address itself to all the Member States asking them whether their rules and regulations are in conformity with this judgement.
Klaganden visste a nierade och den ekonomiska utvervakning (del 1) hade krav priser nierats i den ekonomiska ens utvrapport nr 16/2000, bad klaganden kommissionen om e al av enhetspriser/fasta kostnader else som skickades av
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e ens tolkning av vilken metod ning askrivelsen borde betraktas i ljuset av hela texten, inklusive anbudsinfordran och anbudsunderlaget. i anbudsunderlaget.
The judgement in the la er case was delivered only very recently, on 19 September 2002.
2001, och i den fi nns inget avsni 11.10.02.
In its reply to that Communication, Denmark assured the Commission that its rules are in conformity with the outcome of the Gomes Valente case.
Enligt klaganden dokument med rubriken ”Instruktionsmanual” som antogs den . Klaganden antog internt dokument eller en tidigare version av denna
To sum up its opinion, the Commission concludes that it has not failed to fulfil its obligations towards the complainant.
Den 30 maj 2002 skickade klaganden y erligare kommentarer till Europeiska ombudsmannen.
The complainant will be personally informed about the Commission’s follow-up of his complaint.
Han ersom kommissionen tilldelade det omtvistade juni han g .
The complainant’s observations
ADKOMMA EN VÄNSKAPLIG FÖRLIKNING
The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Commission’s opinion.
Möjligheten till en vänskaplig förlikning
In reply, the complainant sent a three-page le er and supporting documents, making in summary the following points:
E er en noggrann granskning av kommissionens y rande och den klagandes kommentarer fall av administrativa ar sammanfa ningsvis else som y rande, erv
1 As regards the Danish tax rules on cross-border long-term leasing of vehicles, there is a judgement from the Court of Justice and it is the Commission’s obligation to make Denmark conform to this judgement.
Europeiska ombudsmannen konstaterar askickades till samtliga anbudsgivare uppgav agrundval av enhetspriserskrivelse som skickas till samtliga anbudsgivuppgav kommissionen emellertid aal av totalpriset. Genom a
As it is now, Denmark does not comply with the rules.
Den 15 juli kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 3.5 i ombudsmannens stadgar. I sin skrivelse uppmanade ombudsmannen kommissionen aerv entuella fallet av administrativa
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission has acted contrary to good administration by failing to take a stand on the issues raised by him in his infringement complaint. The complainant claims that the Commission should immediately take a stand on the issues raised in his infringement complaint.
Beslut e ara ansv klaganden i sina kommentarer till Europeiska ombudsmannen v vgledningen atyper av ekonomisk utv al av ningen per enhet med motsvarande antal arbetsdagarer kassafl er, i budgetspecifikationen. kationen.
1.2 The Commission argues that it has not failed to fulfil its obligations towards the complainant.
Trots a han utformat si anbud enligt den praktiska v liga en i sin rapport nr verifiera sin tolkning, anger a metoden a erge s.
He further noted that the Commission undertook to take a decision on the complainant’s infringement complaint in October 2001 and to inform the complainant thereof.
Kommissionen anser a , i ljuset av de metoder som angavs i den praktiska vbeaktande av a kontraktet inte var e man i v ningar, och a totalkostnadsmetoden inte skulle v anbudsgiv utv klaganden v
The Commission further indicated that the ma er at stake belongs to a not yet harmonised field of law.
26 anbudsgiv erligare fyra delar utan a a den ekonomiska
The Ombudsman therefore makes a critical remark below.
Klagandens kommentarer till kommissionens svar
1.7 The Ombudsman also points out that the complainant has the possibility of making a new complaint to the Ombudsman in the future if there is further delay by the Commission in reaching a decision on the infringement complaint.
I sina kommentarer till de a y ningsvis svar till dokument som inte ingick i anbudsunderlaget. Om a fall inte
See the Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997, page 270.
elsen v ar vilseledande e argumentet a erge s.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e a)
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
erbryggningskompensation” som betalats till nyckelpersoner inom
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Icke-ekonomisk skada:
Decision on complaint 1523/2002/GG against the European Commission
Klaganden avslutade sina synpunkter med a slig tvist.
In the summer of 2002, the Commission published two open competitions, one for administrators (COM/A/1/02) and one for assistant administrators (COM/A/2/02), in the fields of agriculture,
1.1 I si y ryckte kommissionen ”si kravilket klaganden utny e Europeiska ombudsmannen enbart i sy e aerka kommissionens enheter under upphandling den skulle avse det faktum aklaganden klagade till Europeiska avslutats.
73 fi fisheries and environment
ande denna del av kommissionens y rande.
According to the notice of the second competition, candidates needed to have a university degree but no professional experience.
Ombudsmannen anser inte a det spekulera i anledningarna till a en medborgare
He took the view that this issue had already been resolved.
Europeiska vv ighet a inge e beslut om
Second, the present notice of competition offered an alternative eligibility condition, namely the acquisition of a postgraduate qualification obtained less than three years previously.
Kommissionen aande kommi én om upphandling och avtal hade avge e positivt y rande.
This qualification did not need to have been obtained immediately a er the fi first degree, but could have been acquired as a result of additional training during the candidate’s professional career (even 5, 10 or 15 years a er starting work).
2.4 Ombudsmannen konstaterade akommissionen i sisvtill v at aden i sisvuppge a totalprismetoden inte skulle anv ersom kommissionen i si y rande uppgea totalprismetoden alltid anvervfelaktig information i si sv a utgjorde efall av administrativ a
Commission required recent or “fresh” knowledge.
Klagandens ursprungliga yrkande var aom utv al av angivna av anbudsgivarna. Om de a venhetspriser.
The complainant’s observations
I sina kommentarer till kommissionens sv ny
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint. He queried how a candidate who had obtained his degree four and a half years ago could be considered as possessing a “fresh degree” whereas one who had acquired his degree fi ve and a half years ago was excluded from the competition.
3.2 Vtill ombudsmannen, i enlighet med vad som ange s i 1.3 ovan, inte har en uppskjutande effekt administrativbeslut atilldela e kontrakt.
In the complainant’s view, the condition should be abolished altogether and the “fresh knowledge” tested during the competition itself.
Ombudsmannen drog uppfylla klagandens yrkanden askjuta upp samt granska v
According to the complainant, not only, but mostly young people studied.
V a emellertid inte a det ve det v arikta sinyklaganden var medv v genomdriva sina krav.
Point 1.4 of this decision (adopted on 21 July 2000) reads as follows: ”The Commission has justified the application of this clause on the basis of the nature and functions to be carried out by assistant administrators.
Ombudsmannen konstaterade akommissionen i sisvar på ombudsmannens förslag till vänskaplig förlikning bekrä ade a den i si svar på klagandens begäran om förtydligande uppge a totalprismetoden inte skulle användas.
Since A8 officials are not deemed to have any relevant professional experience prior to their joining the Commission, the institution has set a date – usually no more than 2 or 3 years before the competition – for the completion of their studies.
E ersom kommissionen i siy rande uppgeatotalprismetoden alltid används för övervakningskontrakt, förefaller kommissionen ha lämnat felaktig information i si svar på klagandens begäran om e förtydligande av granskningsförfarandet och därigenom underlåtit a följa de regler som gäller för upphandlingsförfaranden.
The ’freshness’ of the diploma appears thus as a specific condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled.”
De a utgör e fall av administrativt missförhållande.
The complainant argued that in a previous competition (competition COM/LA/9/99), the Commission had protected such categories of persons.
Beslut i klagomål 221/2002/ME mot Europeiska kommissionen
The Commission’s second opinion
Utvutvtermerna ”deltagare” och ”anv
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN ande utv som angavs var samma som angavs i den utv Dessutom konstaterade ombudsmannen a bindande dokument och a a handledningen .
It was certainly true that some people (men and women) had not obtained their degree a er the date stipulated in the notice of competition or did not have the required professional experience.
det v kommissionens anvom a utforma sin information som kan vatermerna ”anv Ombudsmannen konstaterade dessutom a det aktuella programmet reglerades av e stort antal fl.
This did however not amount to discrimination, either on the grounds of age or between men and women.
Under dessa kommissionens anvy kommunikation med medborgarna.
For example, the competition referred to by the complainant had still included an age limit (45 years).
PÅSTÅDD UNDERLÅTENHET ATT FATTA BESLUT I ETT KLAGOMÅL GÄLLANDE ÖVERTRÄDELSE (ARTIKEL 226 I EG-FÖRDRAGET)
The criteria and conditions laid down in notice of competition COM/A/2/02 applied equally to all candidates who were in the same position, regardless of whether they were male or female.
Beslut i klagomål 1237/2002/(PB)OV mot Europeiska kommissionen
The complainant’s observations
Upprinnelsen till de juni 2001. I det tidigare
Candidates needed to have a university degree but no professional experience.
Kommissionen upprepade sin avsikt a
According to the
I juni mot kommissionen.
ANINQUIRY fi ve years before the closing date for the submission of applications (rather than three years as
UNDERSÖGNING
DECISIONSFOLLOWING previously).
BESLUTEFTEREN upp i si en.
2.1 In his observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant took the view that the relevant clause in the notice of competition COM/A/2/02 also constituted discrimination on the
Gomes Valenteemellertid fortfarande inte besvarat meddelandet. E ersom kommissionen anser ade f a
Decisions following an inquiry grounds of sex.76In his view, a woman who had obtained her degree six or more years before the relevant date, and who had then had children, was punished by being excluded from the competition.
Avslutningsvis sammanfa ar kommissionen sina synpunkter med aa uppfylla sina skyldigheter gentemot klaganden.
The complainant pointed out that in a previous competition (competition COM/LA/9/99), the Commission had provided for exceptions in such cases.
Klaganden kommer a informeras personligen som kommissionen valt utarbeta e meddelande med e komplicerade och a ntliga sliga grunden.
The fact that the competition concerned is different from previous ones in that it no longer contains an age limit, laudable as this change is in itself, does not remedy this omission.
3 Valifisom importerats till Danmark har klaganden fl ar, e ersom de ar genom a bevilja honom e uppskov till slutet
This is an instance of maladministration, and a critical remark will be made in this respect.
Slutligen undrar klaganden vdanska myndigheterna vav 2003 med a betala den ska
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Den påstådda underlåtenheten a fa a e beslut i klagomålet om överträdelse
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e en (referensnummer 303/97/PD)69, lovade kommissionen afa a ebeslut om aantingen avsluta einleda eoffi ciellt
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
fall, samt a
Decision on complaint 754/2003/GG against the European Commission
I si administrativ ersom han accepterade a kommissionen avvaktade domen i slutligt svar till klaganden.
Background
Det visar sig nu a.
The present complaint follows two previous complaints (836/2002/GG and 1574/2002/GG) that were lodged in 2002.
Kommissionen har emellertid fortfarande inte fa e a meddelande med problemen i samband med beska ning av bilar och asamtidigt i samtliga medlemsstater genom samarbete och genom ae
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN förklaring till varför den inte kunde fa a e beslut i oktober 2001, trots dess åtagande a göra det, inte är orimlig.
The complainant used to work for the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (the “Board”), an Irish authority.
Klaganden hade emellertid skälig anledning a förvänta sig a kommissionen skulle informera honom i oktober 2001 om a den inte skulle uppfylla si åtagande och om anledningarna till de a.
The complainant was the responsible scientist on this research contract.
Ombudsmannen gör därför en kritisk anmärkning enligt nedan.
According to the complainant, some weeks later the Board had received instructions from its parent civil service authority, the Department of the Marine & Natural Resources, to carry out substantial changes to the dra. Since the complainant had been unwilling to do so, he had considered that his position had become untenable and had resigned from the Board. About a year later, the report was published.
Det hör till god förvaltningssed a ta hänsyn till de berä igade och skäliga förväntningar som allmänheten har mot bakgrund av institutionens tidigare agerande.72 Ombudsmannen anser a kommissionens förklaring till varför den inte kunde fa a ebeslut i oktober 2001, trots dess åtagande a göra det, inte är orimlig.
According to the complainant, it had been very substantially altered. The main findings of the dra final report had been either deleted, negated or diluted.
Klaganden hade emellertid skälig anledning aförvänta sig akommissionen skulle informera honom i oktober 2001 om a den inte skulle uppfylla si åtagande och om anledningarna till de a.
The complainant considered that these changes were not allowed under the contract.
Kommissionens underlåtenhet a göra de a utgör e fall av administrativa missförhållanden.
In his decision of 27 May 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he was unable to deal with this complaint on the grounds that the complainant had not yet made the appropriate prior approaches to the Commission.
Se artikel altningssed som antogs av Europaparlamentet i dess resolution C5-0438/2000 av ebbplats: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
The complainant then wrote to the Director-General of DG Fisheries at the European Commission on 13 June 2002 asking for explanations.
Se artikel altningssed som antogs av Europaparlamentet i dess resolution C5-0438/2000 av ebbplats: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
The Commission noted that it did not wish to intervene in such a process.
Beslut i klagomål 1523/2002/GG mot Europeiska kommissionen
The new complaint
jordbruk, fi
In a le er submi ed in April 2003, the complainant asked the Ombudsman to reconsider his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG in so far as the main issue was concerned.
Enligt meddelandet om det andra u agningsprov ersitetsexamen, men er den a agningsprov27 september 1997”.
The complainant’s le er was therefore treated as a new complaint.
vid kommissionen) a det villkor som angavs i punkt A.II.2.b i meddelandet om u agningsprov utgjorde eavgjorts.
In this new complaint, the complainant submi ed that the final report was a censored version of the dra final report.
Klaganden v a till ombudsmannens beslut av den 27 juni 2002 i OI/2/2001/(BB)/OV.
In order to support this view, the complainant noted in particular that the dra
I det beslutet konstaterade ombudsmannen ainformerat honom om kommissionens beslut av den 10 april 2002 a”med omedelbar verkan avskaff agningsprov som anordnas av kommissionen”.
ANINQUIRY fi final report had concluded that 17 tons of fish damaged by seals had been sampled whereas the
UNDERSÖGNING
The Board’s programme for the study noted that it was hoped “that the causative agents of damaged fish in gillnets and tangle nets will be clearly established”.
agningsprovet var motsvarande klausul i samband med tidigare u agningsprov agningsprov
The European Parliament adopted this resolution on 6 May 1994.77
U agningsprovyrkeskategori A. Krav univ ar e villkor som
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e och 464/98/JMA74 si
On 28 April 1998, the Board sent the “definitive final report” regarding the project to the Commission.
Klaganden kommissionen hade skyddat dessa personkategorier i etidigare u agningsprov
The complainant expressed the hope that he would receive an apology for what had occurred and assurances that efforts would be made to ensure that the like would not happen again.
E er noggrann granskning av kommissionens y klagandens kommentarer till kommissionen och bad den senare y er det ny
The Commission’s opinion
Punkt 1.4 i beslutet som antogs den 21 juli med a ersom agningsprovet.
While it might be argued that the Commission should not have accepted an ill-based and unjustified scientific conclusion, this could not be equated with maladministration.
Punkt v ara especifi rekryteringen av dessa traditionellt har ske bland nyligen utexaminerade universitetsstuderande, anser ombudsmannen aerkar u
This had been the case with the present contract.
Kommissionens andra y rande
If the contractor wished to alter conclusions resulting from the scientific analysis in its fi final report it should be and was entitled to do so.
Kommissionens avsikt med aorganisera u agningsprovet u agningsprovet ar agarantera en balans mellan om u
As regards procedural aspects, it was not common but it was not unknown for a final report to differ from an associated dra final report, even though the la er had been accepted by the Commission.
Det var visserligen sant a vissa personer er det datum som angavs i meddelandet a innebar emellertid inte agningsproven var inte menade a vu agningsprovet organiserats. Faktum var asina u
The Commission did not wish to intervene in such a process.
I det ning a erna. Det v de iakmeddelanden om u ad det v
The Commission had no capacity to reject a final report because it considered it to be scientifically incorrect or for any other reason other than failure to comply with the conditions of the contract.
I meddelandet till u agningsprov COM/LA/9/99, som hade off entliggjorts 1999, uppgavs a det var ad klaganden ta hand om eget barn (de a v ade) eller som led av fysiskt handikapp. Även om det var sant a
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN agningsprov som off entliggjordes av kommissionen, agningsmeddelanden.
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint and made the following further comments:
De kriterier och villkor som angavs i meddelandet om u agningsprovsom var i samma situation, oavse om de v
A copy of this le er, which the complainant had obtained from the Commission further to a request for access to documents, was submi ed to the Ombudsman.
1.2 Kommissionen de e er den 27 september delta i u agningsprovet om ar direkt relev tillsammans med det samtidigt offentliggjorda u agningsprovet agningsprovet COM/A/1/02 v ant. Det enda kravet var a arande u agningsprov agningsprov COM/A/1/02 skulle v delta i det u agningsprovet.
Decisions following an inquiry documents were kept.
Beslut e b ef a allet .