natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1.2 In its opinion, the European Parliament explained that the information contained in the email of 2 July 2002 had been erroneous and that the call for tenders had in fact not been cancelled.
1 P grundval av klagandens kommentarer och kommissionens y randen antar ombudsmannen a klaganden fortfarande vill ha svmars 1mars mars 28 i juni juni av en rapport) av den 22 juli 2002.
Inappropriate and arrogant tone of correspondence
Det kan vbeslut skall faanser a altning kan uppfylla e
The resulting email was not dra ed by himself but was an interpretation of his instructions dra ed in English by a non-native speaker.
4 ve altningen anser aden inte kan ge den altningssed a a uppge a den relevanta informationen inte kan ges e OLAF.
His inquiry is therefore limited to the email of 3 July 2002.
Ombudsmannen anser a altningen a v
If there was indeed, as Parliament stresses in its opinion, no intention to off end or to appear arrogant on the part of the official concerned, there would thus have been ample time subsequently to correct the impression this message was bound to create.
6 I sina kommentarer till kommissionens andra y rande accepterade klaganden a det skulle kunna fiera en vkonstaterar emellertid akommissionen inte har uppge motivera sin vgran a
Further issues
Kommissionens svar
The complainant further argued that one of its members that had been excluded from the said tender had asked to be informed about the reasons for exclusion but had not yet received the answer that the Legal Service had promised.
I sisvar uppgav kommissionen aden uppska en er kommissionens svar hade skickats med.
3.2 The Ombudsman thereupon forwarded the complainant’s observations to Parliament which, in its reply, provided further information concerning the ma er.
Klagandens kommentarer han beklagade aarats de a hade allvarligt hindrat honom i hans arbete som besvarats.
3.3 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need for him to deal, in the present case, with the further issues raised by the complainant in its observations on Parliament’s opinion.
E er en noggrann granskning av kommissionens y rande och klagandens kommentarer verkade as y arats.
Conclusion
Som svsv
Ombudsman considers that by sending and failing to correct the email message of 3 July 2002, Parliament failed to comply with this obligation.
Underlåtenhet a lämna ut information som klaganden begärt flertal flertal
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
I sina kommentarer till kommissionens yaer huvud taget.
Decision on complaint 648/2002/IJH against the Council of the European Union
Ombudsmannen drog slutsatsen a kommissionens v besv
DECISIONSFOLLOWING giving only partial access.
BESLUTEFTEREN
The Council justified its decision to refuse access to certain parts of the documents by reference to
1.4 I sisvsvy erligare information, skickade kommissionen en reviderad lista med sv
In the Council’s view, this could seriously undermine its decision-making process.”
I e telefonsamtal med ombudsmannens kontor den 17 november ara beklagligt a han hade varit tvungen a v ade emellertid a en v s.
Decisions following an inquiry however, the Council has, in most cases, deleted any position taken by an identified delegation in its entirety.
Beslut e ciella anbudsinfordringar offin anbud. Fem av dessa v.
Once the public knows the content of the proposal, an understanding of the difficulties in carrying it through to enactment is important.
I e y erligare ebrev som skickades den 5 juli 2002 informerade T. mo agarna om a de offi ciella ciella ecka.
If a text emerges from the Council with unexplained changes of substance, public confidence in the end product will be undermined and suspicion will be cast on the Council’s methods.
Hon meddelade dessutom a ning av av skillnader i tilldelningskriterierna mellan det meddelande som off entliggjordes i Europeiska unionens offiw. aav tekniska problem”.
Finally, the complainant alleges that the Council’s online register of documents lacks the detail needed to reveal whether a particular document is likely to be of interest, leading to excessive requests for disclosure and a waste of time for both the Council and the applicant.
BESLUTEFTEREN ar en allvhade tillbringat e betydande antal mantimmar med adessutom adet var mycket viktigt a er det aanbuden granskats, e ersom, i det senare fallet, det pris som anbudsgivarna uppgeredan skulle vantal personer. De a betydde i sin tur asekretessen nu v man riskerade a as.
In summary, therefore, the complainant alleges that:
are ningsplanering tonen i sv det ge e arrogant intryck.
(iii) the Council’s online register of documents contains inadequate information.
2 Tonen i e-brev3 juli 2002 hade v e arrogant intryck.
This gives the delegations concerned the necessary flexibility to alter their positions in the light of the ongoing discussion, which constitutes a pre-condition for achieving progress on difficult questions.
Den 2 juli 2002 hade anbudsgivinformerats via e-post om a a ar ansv le till beslutet a det inte v Anbudsgivarna hade aldrig informerats offi ciellt om annulleringen, och inget meddelande som angav a entliggjorts.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e ingen information skulle entliggjordes skickades en offpostmeddelandet av den 2 juli 2002 till samtliga anbudsgiv
However, the specific circumstances in this case justify a more cautious approach.
V juli ningsplanering befunnit sig i kammaren i Strasbourg ara det ebrev som hade mo agits. arbete, e ersom
Document 13563/01 contains a Presidency compromise text on the proposed Regulation.
Avsikten hade inte varit a v ge e arrogant intryck.
Parts of this compromise text have been released, but other parts which concern particularly contentious and controversial issues have been withheld for similar reasons as those referred to above. A compromise proposal only has a chance of being accepted if each delegation is prepared to make concessions from its initial positions.
Europaparlamentet skickade med en kopia av ee-postmeddelande av den 26 september 2002, i vilket anbudsgivarna i den aktuella upphandlingen informerades om akontraktets tilldelningsbeslut hade off entliggjorts den 13 september juli 2002 eventuellt kunde ha orsakat.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN enligt Europaparlamentet inte hade v arit just .
However, the Council is prepared to examine the possibility of increasing the user-friendliness of the public register.
Klaganden det var uppseendev ningsplanering hade feltolkats och a den enhet inom aliteten i de skriliga
The Council also supplied the Ombudsman with a copy of the documents as supplied to the complainant.
EU som hade ansvsvar som skickades till anbudsgivarna.
The complainant’s observations
juli 2002 inte hade ningsplanering personligen.
Furthermore, the Council’s debate is not the equivalent of a ministerial or cabinet meeting at which odd and possibly unacceptable ideas are put forward among individuals.
v andra skrivelser a ningen skulle vkommunikation med externa medarbetare som det var beroende av.
She also made a number of suggestions to enhance what she referred to as this “uniquely valuable source of information.”
Mot bakgrund av klagandens kommentarer drog ombudsmannen slutsatsen ay
The Ombudsman therefore sought to verify from inspection of the documents whether the material that had been deleted by the Council could allow someone, possibly an expert, to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council.
E ersom de ansv a klart aar givet vad resultatet av dessa avv ciella diskussionerna e sligt v riskera a informera anbudsgivarna om a e-postmeddelandet av den 2 juli 2002 hade varit felaktigt och aa verket fortfarande v e par va informera dem om a s i anbudsunderlaget/av ara W.
References to named delegations or to the Commission representative
anbudsunderlaget afelaktiga e-postmeddelandet ve-postmeddelanden med lev
All footnote references to named delegations appear to have been deleted, whilst in most cases the corresponding text has been released.
Planeringsavdelningens frilansenhet vflxlade i genomsni50 e-postmeddelanden per dag med lev. a meddelanden med as eart och e av de 11, snart 20, offi ciella
In general, the deleted footnotes contain no information other than the identity of the delegation and the fact that it proposed, agreed or disagreed with, or made a reservation concerning, the position stated in the text.
Europaparlamentet tilldelade kontrakt genom eoff mycket ning anger tydliga regler om vilken typ av ar olyckligt om dessa formkrav uppfa ar skyldiga a som skapat elagsti ning.
An exception is the footnote on page 3 of document 12241/01.
och fi ck inte off information om e
In most cases where references to named delegations are in form (ii) or (iii), the entire paragraph concerned has been deleted.
Klagandens kommentarer sammanslutningen hade vidarebefordrat parlamentets y rande till sina medlemmar med en uppmaning om a ar v det helt klart ”.
In certain other cases, the deleted material consists of Presidency compromise proposals.
Underlåtenhet a förklara skälen till a upphandlingsförfarandet ställdes in
The Ombudsman cannot confirm that any of the deleted material in this category would enable the views of a specific delegation or delegations, or of the Commission representative to be identified.
1.1 ning av arna . Den v2 juli 2002 informerades anbudsgivarna av Europaparlamentet om a
On the basis of the inspection, the Ombudsman considers that deletion of at least the following material does not appear to be justified by the reasoning that its release could enable someone, possibly an expert, to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council :
1.2 I siyinformationen i det e-postmeddelande som skickades den 2 juli 2002 hade varit felaktigt och aa verket inte september 2002 informerat anbudsgivarna i det tilldelningsbeslutet hade off entliggjorts den 13 september 2002.
Document 10022/01: pages 29-36 (tables containing a factual comparison of main competition law provisions in Member States with Arts 81-82 EC).
Samtidigt hade Europaparlamentet bee-postmeddelandet som skickades den 2 juli 2002 kunde ha orsakat.
Document 5843/01: paragraphs 4, 5.
Olämplig och arrogant ton i meddelandet
Document 6024/01: paragraphs 4, 5.
Klaganden anser a tonen i det e-postmeddelande i vilket Europaparlamentet den 3 juli 2002
Document 6622/01: paragraphs 3, 10, 11.
2.1 besv arrogant intryck.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN ade.
Document 13563/01 falls into two parts: a progress report and Annexes.
Ombudsmannen konstaterar emellertid a dessa skriv
Release of the deleted text (excluding footnotes) could not, in the Ombudsman’s view, enable anyone, even an expert, to identify the views of a specific delegation or delegations, or of the Commission representative.
56 altningssed a E-postmeddelandet av den 3 juli a meddelande, som skickades som svklagandens medlemmar, ger e intryck av askyldighet a ad mening.
The same analysis also applies to the deletions in Document 5158/01, which contains an earlier proposal for the text of a Regulation.
Ombudsmannen anser a e-postmeddelande. Ombudsmannen konstaterar a
In reply, the Council stated that it had reached political agreement on the dra Regulation concerned at its meeting on 26 November 2002.
Europaparlamentet, genom a korrigera, e-postmeddelandet av den 3 juli uppfylla fall av administrativt sin skyldighet a v
THE DECISION
Y erligare frågor
Refusal of full access to certain documents
I sina kommentarer till Europaparlamentets y at samt om det relevanta y randet aat.
The complainant alleged that the Council deleted more material than was justified by its reasoning concerning the need to maintain confidentiality of individual delegations’ positions on particular subject ma ers which are still under discussion.
3.2 er klagandens kommentarer till Europaparlamentet, som i si svar y a svar tackade den hade vidarebefordrat parlamentets y rande till sina medlemmar med en uppmaning om a personligen , som redan ar v det fi
1.4 Following an inspection of the documents concerned, the Ombudsman formed the view that certain deletions could not be justified by the Council’s reasoning.
Det hör till god förvaltningssed atjänstemän skall vara artiga i sina kontakter med allmänheten.57
The Ombudsman informed the Council of his detailed findings and requested it to re-examine its position.
Ombudsmannen anser a Europaparlamentet underlät auppfylla denna skyldighet genom askicka, samt underlåta akorrigera, e-postmeddelandet av den 3 juli 2002.
In reply, the Council stated that it had reached political agreement on the dra Regulation61
3.4.2 Europeiska unionens råd
1.5 concerned at its meeting on 26 November 2002.
TILLGÅNG TILL HANDLINGAR
The Ombudsman therefore considers that it is necessary to make a finding on the complainant’s allegation of maladministration against the Council.
Beslut i klagomål 648/2002/IJH mot Europeiska unionens råd
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e erade sibeslut av
2.2 The Council argued that the Commission documents concerned are non-papers prepared for discussion in the Council working group, which had neither been approved by the Commission at the level of the college of Commissioners nor were intended to commit it.
“I samband med preliminära diskussioner och förhandlingar i rådets beredande organ är möjligheten för delegationerna au rycka sina åsikter fri , även när det gäller politiskt känsliga frågor, en viktig förutsä ning för a rådet skall kunna komma fram till kompromisslösningar och göra framsteg i svåra frågor.
2.3 In her observations, the complainant stated that she is willing to accept that Commission working documents prepared as contributions to the Council debate should be treated in the same way as Council documents.
A i nuvarande skede utlämna de delar av handlingarna som skulle göra det möjligt a identifi era de enskilda delegationernas ståndpunkter i frågor som fortfarande diskuteras skulle äventyra denna förmåga, e ersom det skulle kunna avsevärt minska delegationernas manöverutrymme när det gäller a ompröva sina respektive ståndpunkter i ljuset av de argument som framförs under diskussionen.
The complainant therefore appears to have dropped this aspect of the complaint.
Enligt rådet skulle de a allvarligt kunna undergräva dess beslutsförfarande.”
The Council’s online register of documents
I siidentitet, utan a de erka e ev erdrivna och a
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN esta fall helt raderat de at en del av dokumenten deras mening. svar radera respektive delegations namn.
She also made a number of suggestions to enhance what she called this “uniquely valuable source of information.”
t v ar et bevskall off ara relevandra sidan, om dokumenten utarbetades e er det a era av
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e ad som kunde motiveras av det uppgivna behovet a bev arbetsdokument.
THE COMPLAINT
Rådets y rande
According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
Sammanfa y rande:
This was done in violation of the complainant’s rights of defence.
V a offde fldiskussionerna, samtidigt som man inte offaidentifi
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN fl
He was dismissed for reasons of which the General
Dokument entliggjorts, men andra delar som de som anges ovan.
These powers necessarily include the recruitment and the eventual dismissal of contractual staff, as was the case with the complainant.
E bli antaget om varje A, samtidigt som dessa fortfarande a sy et med kompromissen.
OJ L 70/1 of 13 March 2002.
, ade var avsedda a de v ar avsedda a
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e mo ring av det off entliga registrets anv
From the above it appears that it is not for the General Secretariat of the Council to recruit (and eventually dismiss) contractual staff for the EUPM.
Klagandens kommentarer y rande behandlar EU:s internationellt avtal, l ags t i regerings- eller kabine udda och ev are.
The complainant maintained his complaint.
Aerkar vara en extrem delegationernas namn raderas.
The scope of the Ombudsman’s inquiry
hon var villig aacceptera a
The termination of the contract without reasons and on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations
arit avsedda hon inte ville drivara en ”unikt v ring av v
According to the complainant, his rights of defence have been violated.
YTTERLIGARE UNDERSÖKNINGAR rande och klagandens kommentarer
2.2 The Council argued that its General Secretariat did not intervene either in the complainant’s appointment, or in his dismissal.
Eombudsmannen a det vraderingarnas omfa ning och natur.
Article 4.1 of the Joint Action provides that the Head of Mission/
Ombudsmannen informera om vad ombudsmannen kommit fram till.
On the basis of this evidence, the facts of the case appear to be as follows:
Hänvisningar till namngivna delegationer eller till kommissionens företrädare
(ii) The termination of the complainant’s contract was decided as a disciplinary measure.
I de fl ut i sin helhet utan a entliggjort resten av texten.
The documentation sent by the complainant contains a note of 12 November 2002 from the Legal Adviser of the EUPM Planning Team entitled “Recommendation on a disciplinary case”.
a aresten av texten i eraderat stycke i 36 i
The alleged misconduct concerned the supposed relationship of the complainant with a Moldavian woman who was staying illegally in Bosnia-Herzegovina working as a dancer in two local bars and whom the complainant was supposed to have paid for “services”.
Raderat material som inte innehåller några hänvisningar till namngivna delegationer eller till kommissionens företrädare av handlingar
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN a a identifi
Principles of good administration require that the institutions reply to le ers of citizens68
Mot bakgrund av ovdet raderade material som anges ov ande ge
INCORRECT INFORMATION IN A TENDER PROCEDURE
I sina kommentarer uppgav klaganden agenom aer a
The complainant asked whether it was based on unit prices or global price.
Vägran a bevilja full tillgång till vissa dokument
The complainant’s proposal contained a high number of
1.1 ad som kunde motiveras av dess uppgivna behov av a bev
Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
, tillsammans med andra delar av de aktuella dokumenten.
(ii) If the financial evaluation was made on the basis of the global price, the Commission should suspend the procedure and review whether the use of this wrongful evaluation method resulted in an incorrect ranking of tenders.
Ombudsmannen granskade de dokument som klaganden endast hade beviljats partiell e identifi era delegationernas, eller kommission a utgjorde e
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN den 26 november 2002, nu har ge
In its opinion, the European Commission made, in summary, the following points:
Tillgång till kommissionens arbetsdokument
The Commission considered that the complainant’s behaviour could be regarded as an a empt to gain access to confidential information on the tender procedure.
Klaganden a kommissionens arbetsdokument.
The contract was awarded in accordance with the procedural rules in force, in particular with Section 4 of the Manual of Procedures.
I sina kommentarer uppgav klaganden ahon var villig aacceptera akommissionens
Point B of the le er of clarification sent to the complainant on 20 June 2001 should not be used outside its context and outside the provisions of the invitation to tender and the tender dossier.
3.2 information om varje dokuments upphovsman och mo agare samt en er dokument.
This issue has never been raised in previous invitations to tender.
a ring av det off entliga registrets anv
Given that the complainant was the successful tenderer for the previous monitoring system, he should have been well acquainted with the tendering rules.
I sina kommentarer uppgav klaganden a hon inte ville driv arit avsedda som en ring
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e av v ara en ”unikt v
The complainant contacted the Commission’s departments several times during the tender procedure.
Ombudsmannen granskade de dokument som klaganden endast hade beviljats partiell tillgång till av rådet.
It aimed to alert the Commission to possible maladministration based on unclear terms of reference, a misleading le er of clarification and violation of the prevailing Tacis monitoring methods. The complainant did not take the initiative to contact the Commission in order to gain access to confidential information.
Ombudsmannen anser a rådets påstående, a e utlämnande av det raderade materialet skulle kunna göra det möjligt för någon aidentifi era delegationernas, eller kommissionsföreträdarnas, ståndpunkter när det gällde de frågor som diskuterades i rådet, inte kan rä färdiga många av de raderingar som gjorts.
In compliance with the Court of Auditor’s interpretation of the method to be used in such unclear cases, the complainant constructed its proposal accordingly.
RÅDETS ANSVAR FÖR ATT TILLSE ATT EUROPEISKA UNIONENS POLISSTYRKA I SARAJEVO RESPEKTERAR DE GRUNDLÄGGANDE RÄTTIGHETERNA
However, the scope of the complaint was not limited to the le er of clarification but referred also to various paragraphs in the terms of reference.
Beslut i klagomål 1200/2003/OV (konfidentiellt) mot Europeiska unionens råd unionens polisuppdrag (EUPM) i Sarajevo al av obestyrkta anklagelser. De ar.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion was that there could be an instance of maladministration by the Commission.
I e kort y dess generalsekretariat inte lade sig i vare sig klagandens den 11 mars 2002 om Europeiska unionens polisuppdrag62
The reasons for this conclusion were, in summary, as follows:
Enligt artikel hantera de uppgi er
According to the rules of the tender procedure, a clarification le er, which is sent to all tenderers, is binding on the Commission.
64 er EUPM, ata det dagliga ansv och a och ev
The Commission’s reply
Klagandens kommentarer elser till advokater i
The complainant’s observations on the Commission’s reply
Ombudsmannen konstaterar a Europeiska unionens polisuppdrag ades genom
The Commission referred in its reply to documents which were not provided in the tender documents. If the Commission intended to follow the fee-based contract, it did not in this case comply with its own repeatedly quoted rules.
Enligt artikel ha ansv3.2 i avtalet mellan EU och Bosnien och Hercegovina om EUPM:s aktiviteter i Bosnien och Hercegovina66 anges a polischefen tillse igheter som
The Commission’s inaction had led to the following direct and indirect damage:
meddelande av den 12 november are med rubriken ”Rekommendation i e
– Loss of nine highly qualified key monitoring staff to the successful consortium;
arens slutsats och rekommendation var a ”[klaganden] har genom si allvarligt allvarligt entyrat EUPM:s planeringsgrupps goda rykte.
– Cost for legal advice and substantial time for replying to the Commission’s statements.
Hans handlingar har i de a avseende utgjort e allva med omedelbar v aren till kontraktets paragraf en a
The complainant concluded his observations by urging a quick friendly solution to avoid a long legal dispute.
I artikel 41 i Europeiska igheterna till god aeller henne negativt vidtas mot honom eller henne.
Decisions following an inquiry appropriate for the institution complained against to speculate on the reasons why a citizen chooses to exercise his or her fundamental right to make a complaint.
3.2 Ombudsmannen anser aovresultat och slutsatser i 2.6 ovantingen v Europeiska ombudsmannen.
1.3 The Ombudsman pointed out that an inquiry by the Ombudsman does not have a suspensive effect on administrative procedures, nor can the Ombudsman set aside a decision to award a contract.
Klaganden a det inte lagt sig i klagandens rekrytering eller avskedande.
The owninitiative inquiry, which is still on going, does not deal with the substance of the present case.
4.3 altningssed skall institutionerna besvara skrivelser som arken har besvarat inges av medborgarna67 klagandens skriv svara. De