natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That was why the fi le did not contain the dra final report that had been superseded by the final report.
Kommissionen konstaterade agningsprovet v motsvarande klausul i samband med tidigare u agningsprovdelta i u agningsprov
Preliminary remark
75 beslut a
1.1 The present complaint concerns a contract (reference number PEM/93/06) between the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (an Irish authority) and the European Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) XIV (Fisheries) by which the Commission undertook to provide part of the cost of research into “The Physical Interaction between Grey Seals and Fishing Gear”.
1.4 Ombudsmannen konstaterar dessutom a agningsprovarande klausuler i samband med tidigare u agningsprov, och a kommissionen anordnade u agningsprovet samtidigt med det uersitetsexamina den 27 september som u agningsprov agningsprovet COM/A/1/02.
The allegation that the Commission should not have allowed the changes that were made by the Board
Påstådd diskriminering mellan kvinnor och män i u agningsprovet COM/A/2/02 den aktuella klausulen
According to him, the main findings of the dra final report that had been submi ed in March 1997 were either deleted, negated or diluted in the final report that was submi ed by the Board in April 1998.
2.1 I sina kommentarer till kommissionens yi meddelandet om u agningsprov 76 Enligt klaganden bestraff ersitetsexamen barn, genom a u agningsprov kommissionen hade medgetidigare u agningsprov (COM/LA/9/99).
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.
Kommissionen medgav a meddelandet om u agningsprov det v under minst e ta hand om eget barn, och a meddelandet om u agningsprov COM/skillnader mellan uppfylla meddelanden om u
2.4 However, the Ombudsman considers, as he already set out in his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG, that the Commission’s view according to which it was the responsibility and duty of the contractor to deliver the final report in the form it saw as appropriate appears to be reasonable.
428/98/JMA och 464/98/JMA och hans beslut av den 28 mars 2003 agningsprovet COM/A/2/02).
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e a.
This means that the Commission examines a report to ascertain as to whether there are any such deficiencies and does not limit itself to rubber-stamping the report submi ed to it.
Det hör till god förvaltningssed a garantera lika möjligheter för män och kvinnor när man beslutar vilka villkor som måste uppfyllas av de sökande i u agningsprov som organiseras av gemenskapens institutioner eller organ.
3.8 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that the the Commission should have examined the substantially modified final report submi ed to it in April 1998, more than a year a er it had accepted the dra final report. By neglecting to do so, the Commission failed to comply with the requirement to act consistently.
Under dessa omständigheter anser ombudsmannen akommissionen, vid utarbetandet av meddelandet om u agningsprov COM/A/1/02, har underlåtit a garantera lika möjligheter för kvinnor och män genom a inte ta tillräcklig hänsyn till situationen för kvinnor som har vårdat barn.
This was an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman makes a critical remark below.
De a utgör e fall av administrativa missförhållanden.
At the very least he was seeking to be exonerated for refusing to be a party to scientific censorship and to have his reputation restored.
INKONSEKVENT BETEENDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONENS SIDA I SAMBAND MED SÄLSTUDIE
4.2 In his le er of 17 August 2003, however, the complainant explained that upon reflection he wished to await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiry first. first.
Beslut i klagomål 754/2003/GG mot Europeiska kommissionen
By neglecting to do so, the Commission failed to comply with the requirement to act consistently. This was an instance of maladministration.
Enligt artikel 3 (”Rapporter och dokumentation”) i avtalet skulle de uppgi i enlighet med bilaga
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN er .
Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
kommissionen senast e visst datum. I bilaga aantingen meddela uppdragstagaren a uppdragstagaren mouppdragstagaren skicka kommissionen den defi nitiv
The complainant annexed to his complaint copies of the e-mails to the Commission in which he asked for clarification.
13 juni ombudsmannen i september 2002 hade klaganden vskrivelse hade mo agits.
That is, a web page giving answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
I siy er de det inte var vanligt aen en om den senare hade ar det trots accepterats av kommissionen, men a de
(i) the Commission’s FAQ website contained information which was unclear and possibly inconsistent with the tender specifications; and
Beslut e allt uppdragstagarens (dvs. fiskeristyrelsens) uppgioch skyldighet aleverera slutrapporten den inte ville ingripa i den processen.
(ii) the Commission failed to answer his questions concerning the tender specifications. cations.
I sia det var uppdragstagarens uppgi och skyldighet a levverkade rimlig och a besvara klagandens skrivelse.
THE INQUIRY
Det nya klagomålet a si
We could also send illustrative information on likely translators but would these all have to be certified?” The complainant had also asked what legal relationship would bind his company’s subcontractors to the Commission.
I de a nyslutrapporten var en censurerad version av det ning konstaterade klaganden man funnit 17 ton fi sk som , medan man i motsvarande slutsats i slutrapporten enbart konstaterat a skador sken kunde tillskriv.
According to the complainant, the above was not clear from the supplied information.
Enligt klaganden hade det inte arit kontroversiellt och a de a var anledningen till a
The tender specifications, and more specifically paragraph 2.3.3.2., were unambiguous as regards possible requirements.
Klaganden ingav e korrespondens mellan kommissionen och fi skeristyrelsen i samband med avtalet mellan april 1997
Who should the copies be certified by?”
I en skrivelse till kommissionen av den 2 juni
The certification must be done by an appropriate authority, e.g. a solicitor or notary. Self-certification is not acceptable.”
, akonstaterades a man hoppades a ”orsakerna till a sk i bo engarn och
The complainant had further asked whether a sworn statement before a notary would be sufficient to prove that his company was not bankrupt or subject to bankruptcy procedures, since it was not possible to obtain a Certificate of Good Conduct in Britain.
Motiv ickestatliga organisationers protektionistiska v nns tecken som erka den skeriverksamhet veunder de senaste tv skeindustrins effekter de etenskaplig censur. (…)
Decisions following an inquiry was described in section 1.12 of the tender specifications83.
Ingen annanstans har denna form av censur voch fiskeindustrin. (…)”.
This approach was in line with le ing the principle of safeguarding a level playing field for all tenderers prevail over the Commission’s policy to reply to all requests for information.
I sisvar av den 14 januari 1997 konstaterade kommissionen a”senast i slutet av februari 1997”.
The complainant’s observations
I efaxmeddelande av den 21 maj antal tryckfel och grammatiska fel” i det a till dessa i slutrapporten.
The complainant’s observations made, in summary, the following points:
I en skrivelse till fi skeristyrelsen av den 15 december till den fortfarande v
In reply to a certain FAQ, it was stated that “unlike other supporting documentation, the copies of the degree certificates do not have to be certified.
Den 7 januari 1998 uppgav fi skeristyrelsen i sisvar aer kostnaderna i mi en av februari.
One original bid must be submi ed, including originals or certified copies”.
Fiskeristyrelsen konstaterade dessutom a den maj
It was not at all clear that this alternative evidential method also applied to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) and the answer to the complainant’s question could not necessarily have been inferred from the wording of the paragraph.
I si svar av den 9 januari 1998 uppgav kommissionen a den tagit del av fiskeristyrelsens uppgia
The FAQ website’s alleged unclearness and inconsistency with the tender specifications cations
Den 28 april 1998 skickade fi skeristyrelsen den ”defi nitivkommissionen.
The complainant alleges that the FAQ website, read together with the tender specifications, made it unclear whether certified information on subcontractors had to be submi ed.
I denna blankefanns administrativ kommissionens ansvden 17 juni 1997.
Furthermore, the answer to the FAQ in question only confirmed what was already clear from the tender specifications.
I si ny ningsvis a 1) kommissionen hade varit fi fiskeristyrelsen, och a och tillse a igen.
However, in view of the wording of the FAQ to which the information in question constituted an answer, the Ombudsman does not consider that the information on the FAQ website was unclear or inconsistent with the tender specifications.
Som uppgavs i kommissionens sv ar kommissionens viktigaste om det ven slutrapport, huruvida villkoren i avtalet var uppfyllda.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission as regards this part of the complaint.
De a hade v nna brister i den vetenskapliga analysen av resultatet av a hade emellertid inte varit fallet i samband med de a avtal, vare sig i den den v
2.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission did not answer his questions regarding the tender specifications. cations.
Det var trots allt uppdragstagarens ansvar och skyldighet a leverera den rapporten inte rapporten vara vuppfyllde villkoren i avtalet.
The Commission also argues that no other tenderer had come forward with any of the complainant’s questions and that its approach was in line with le ing the principle of safeguarding a level playing field for all tenderers prevail over its policy to reply to all requests for information.
kontakter mellan olika administrativa eller statliga organ i Irland som kommissionen inte hade ars resolution inte var bindande
Indeed, the language of section 1.12 of the tender specifications84 could reasonably lead tenderers to expect that the Commission would answer all questions meeting the criteria specified therein and that a level playing field would be safeguarded by publication of answers on the FAQ website.
Klagandens kommentarer erligare kommentarer: ar ansv fl flertal mellan maj 1997 och september 1997 informerats per telefon om a projektet hade manipulerats. I en skrivnovember 199779 han hade entliggjordes”.
Furthermore, as regards the interpretation of paragraph 2.1.1. of the tender specifications, the complainant appears to have asked the Commission whether a sworn statement would be sufficient to show that his company was not bankrupt.
I sin skrivelse av den 11 augusti 2003 avslutade klaganden med abeaen offi a gjordes. vgrat vara delaktig i vetenskaplig censur och a han kommit
It was only in the course of the current inquiry that the complainant elaborated his question into how to interpret the last sentence of paragraph 2.1.1. in relation to the sub-paragraphs.
I en y erligare skrivelse av den 17 augusti fram till a
Self-certification is not acceptable.”
En kopia av denna skrivskickades till ombudsmannen.
It is good administration to act in accordance with reasonable expectations created by the Institution’s conduct.87
Det fanns dessutom avemellertid inga anteckningar som styrkte a manuskript som daterats ”18 mars” och som v G D Fiske.
The Commission’s failure to provide and publish such answers was therefore an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman will make a critical remark in this regard.
Även om det inte fidet troligt a ryckligen anger vad meddelandet avsererkar 80 Meddelandet ger e intryck av a rapportens slutsatser var kontroversiella.
It is good administration to act
Inledande anmärkning
88 in accordance with reasonable expectations created by the Institution’s conduct.
1.1 skeristyrelsen fi av fi skeristyrelsen och som var ansv en annan , hade ingripit och er det a rapporten hade
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
BESLUTEFTEREN gjort omfaaccepterats av kommissionen.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Europeiska kommissionen.
Decision on complaint 852/2003/OV against the Economic and Social Commi ee
Påståendet akommissionen inte borde ha tillåtit de ändringar som gjordes av fi skeristyrelsen
In January 2002, he therefore applied to ECOSOC for a post as an official.
2.2 Kommissionen anser aform som denne anser v leverera slutrapporten i den Även om erad v e e
As the complainant had made new allegations in his observations of 30 November 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he could submit a new complaint.
De a vi den v a hade emellertid inte varit fallet i samband med de a avtal, v etenskapliga analysen i slutrapporten kunde altningssed a agera konsekvent.81
The Economic and Social Commi ee’s opinion
Äv tro a skicka en skrier e er det a kommissionen hade accepterat det as
These statements were in no way libellous.
3.7 veuppdragstagaren om dessa brister. Deakontrollera om det fi ombudsmannen a kommissionen var medveten om aslutrapport var kontrovinnan den offentliggjordes, c) den defi nitiv a slutredigera rapporten er e er det a slutrapporten.
The complainant was not entirely truthful towards the ECOSOC officials who fi first contacted him to initiate the appointment procedure.
Det fi er det a den tagit emot den definitiva slutrapporten i april 1998.
ECOSOC has in no way sought to discredit the complainant, nor commi ed any slander against him.
3.8 den kra kommissionen borde ha granskat er e er det a nitiv
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e uppfylla krav agera konsekvent. De a e
The complainant maintained his complaint and made nine pages of observations which can be summarised as follows: He regre ed that ECOSOC did not show any intention to meet his request for a wri en retraction of the allegation that he provided false information and for a wri en apology.
I si och tillse asin skrivelse av den 11 augusti 2003 avslutade klaganden med abe han ursprungligen hade han nu ville a ciell han vara a gjordes. delaktig i vetenskaplig censur och a
He maintained his request and was open for a friendly solution.
I sin skrivelse av den 17 augusti han kommit fram
ECOSOC at no point retracted its allegation that the complainant provided it with false information, nor did it provide any facts to substantiate the allegation.
Ombudsmannen anser a kommissionen borde ha granskat den kra igt ändrade definitiva slutrapport som lämnades in i april 1998, över e år e er det a kommissionen hade accepterat det preliminära förslaget till slutrapport.
These additional allegations are as unfounded and as unsubstantiated as the allegation that is the subject of the present complaint.
Genom a underlåta a göra de a har kommissionen underlåtit a uppfylla kravet på a agera konsekvent.
ECOSOC was again acting deliberately to discredit the complainant by making libellous allegations against him.
De a utgör e fall av administrativt missförhållande.
The responsibility for knowing the recruitment procedures rests with the Community institutions and not with the citizen.
PÅSTÅDD UNDERLÅTENHET ATT BESVARA FRÅGOR OM ANBUDSUNDERLAG
THE DECISION
Beslut i klagomål 949/2003/IJH mot Europeiska kommissionen
The admissibility of the complaint
I maj 2003 ingavs e ande kommissionens entliggjordes den 17 april 2003.
1.1 In its opinion, ECOSOC questions the admissibility of the complaint on two grounds: a) the question which arises is a problem of a procedural nature that must be resolved as part of the same proceedings used to reach a decision on the initial complaint, and b) the complainant has not made prior administrative approaches in relation to this new complaint.
dokumentation som skulle skickas in tillsammans med anbudet, och svw a (FAQ)82bidrog endast till a ar.
Decisions following an inquiry inappropriate.
Beslut e anbudsunderlaget och i sv ara bestyrkta.
If a complaint is wrongly deemed inadmissible, the citizen’s rights are put at risk”.90
Sammanfa ar i) Kommissionens woklar och som eventuellt stred mot uppgi erna i anbudsunderlaget.
2.1 The complainant alleges that ECOSOC’s statement in its opinion on complaint 906/2002/OV that he provided false information is unfounded and constitutes an act of maladministration.
I esamband med anbudet skicka med bestyrkta/intygade uppgi er om alla ev are vi eventuellt skulle kunna anv visst projekt? Vi kan, i samband med va informera om v v are, och vi skulle kunna a de a under ed.
The complainant argues that he acted in good faith.
Skulle de a vara i
The complainant played on the potential ambiguity of the concepts, was himself the source of the incomplete information provided to ECOSOC and must bear the logical consequences of his disloyal action.
De ades i sv a ”Måste även fotokopiorna på examensbevis vara bestyrkta? Måste även de båda kopiorna på anbudet vara bestyrkta? Vem skall bestyrka kopiorna?”
The complainant’s belief that he passed the competition and could apply for a post at ECOSOC was thus wrong.
I paragraf ”under alla omständigheter skall huvudanbudstagaren ha hela ansvaret för kontraktets genomförande”.
2.4 In its opinion on complaint 906/2002/OV, ECOSOC stated that the complainant provided “false” information.
Klaganden hade dessutom kommenterat kravsvari uppgavs a ”till skillnad från den övriga stödjande dokumentationen behöver kopiorna av examensbevis inte vara bestyrkta. E originalanbud måste inges, inklusive original eller bestyrkta kopior.
In its opinion on the present complaint, ECOSOC has not provided any evidence to show that the complainant deliberately provided untrue information.
De båda kopiorna skall helt enkelt vara fotokopior av det ursprungliga anbudet, inklusive bilagorna.
ECOSOC could, in its opinion on the present complaint, have withdrawn and apologised for any suggestion that the complainant did not act in good faith.
Bestyrkningen måste utföras av en lämplig myndighetsperson, till exempel en advokat eller notarie.
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e besvara
In the present case, ECOSOC has failed to comply with the duty to act courteously.
, aren och tilldelningsmyndigheten framgick av sektion 1.12 i anbudsunderlaget83
If an error occurs, which negatively affects the rights or interests of a member of the public, the
, och e ersom ingen annan anbudsgivare linje med apolicy a besv
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, and considering the position adopted by ECOSOC in its opinions on the present case and case 906/2002/OV, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Dessutom var paragraf 2.1.1 i anbudsunderlaget tvetydig, e ersom den sista meningen helt klart d): ”anbudsgivaren måste också kunna styrka a han fullgjort dessa skyldigheter i form av e aktuellt intyg”.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Samtliga anbudsgivare .
This is a short summary of the decision which could not be published in full due to its length.
Webbsidans påstådda otydlighet och bristande överensstämmelse med anbudsunderlaget
See the Ombudsman’s decision of 13 March 2002 in the own initiative inquiry OI/1/2002/OV concerning CEDEFOP, Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2002, p. 204.
wanbudsunderlaget, skapade oklarhet om huruvida anbudsgivinformation om sina underlev. Det v ara bestyrkta.
Article 12.1 and 12.3 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
. /.../ Presumtiva ara tydliga och anbudsgivkortfa ade och ueller tyska, och svaren kommer a
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e ara bestyrkta.
2002, the newspaper European Voice quoted an OLAF spokesman as having said that OLAF “had been given prima facie evidence that a payment may have occurred”.
1.3 ersom e de fl esta fall inte kan komple inte ombudsmannen a ar oklar eller inte i
During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, OLAF argued that the decision to announce that an internal investigation had been opened was taken a er careful consideration.
Kommissionens påstådda underlåtenhet a besvara klagandens frågor a kommissionen inte besv ande
Enquiries as to whether this had in fact occurred were still ongoing.
Kommissionen a ersom alla sv
They are therefore also relevant for the provision of information.
2.3 hans slutsatser i 1.3 ovan (dvs. a
Such an approach is in conformity with the obligation of the institutions and bodies of the EU to take decisions as openly as possible (Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union). However, an insinuation of bribery is a serious allegation which is likely to tarnish the reputation of a journalist.
BESLUTEFTEREN ara inkonsekvent eller are a det inte skulle kunna fi be om y 1.12 i anbudsunderlaget84a varna a tro a kommissionen skulle besvde kriterier som anges i avsni et och a ningar skulle garanteras genom asvaren off AQ).
Such insinuations must therefore not be made in public without a sufficiently serious basis that can be scrutinised publicly.
2.4 kommissionen skickade klaganden ee-brev med informationen a
OLAF informed the Ombudsman that it accepted the drarecommendation and that it had implemented it by publishing a press release.
2.1.1 och a ar paragraf 2.1.1. Ombudsmannen anser a kommissionens svvar rimlig, dvs. asvaret kunde hi offe ny sver o
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with the following critical remark:
Ombudsmannen anser inte asvoch bland de o
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e vara bestyrkta, anser inte ombudsmannen akommissionens argument, dvs. asvaren
3.5.1 The Council of the European Union
86 sv altningssed a handlande.87 ar var a avseende.
Decision on complaint 573/2001/IJH (Confidential) against the Council of the European Union
På grundval avavsni 1.12 i anbudsunderlaget kunde klaganden rimligtvis förvänta sig a kommissionen skulle offentliggöra svaren på två av hans frågor på webbsidan för o a förekommande frågor (FAQ).
The complaint was made by a chartered accountant. It was classified as confidential, at the complainant’s request, in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
PÅSTÅENDE ATT KLAGANDEN LÄMNAT ”FALSKA UPPGIFTER” I SAMBAND MED REKRYTERING
The Council refused access to the document by reference to Article 4 (2) of Council Decision 93/731, in order to protect the confidentiality of the Council’s proceedings.
Beslut i klagomål 852/2003/OV mot Ekonomiska och sociala kommi én
The Ombudsman noted that the Council did not explain in what way the Code of Conduct Group’s second annual report differs in nature from the first, which was published.
Den 14 och 22 maj 2002 ingav klaganden e OV) mot Ekonomiska och sociala kommiavbrutit hans rekrytering.
(ii) the Council failed to address the question of partial access.
Klaganden hade deltagit i Europaparlamentets u agningsprov PE/86/Aelse av den 29 juli
96, which replaced Council Decision 93/ the application in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001731.
Eara fotokopior av e original eller bestyrkta kopior det ursprungliga anbudet, inklusivadv
Case C-353/99 P, Council of the European Union v. Heidi Hautala, [2001] ECR I-9565, para. 87.
87 altningssed som antogs av Europaparlamentet genom dess resolution C5ebbplats: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, 2001 OJ L 145/43.
88 altningssed som antogs av Europaparlamentet genom dess resolution C5ebbplats: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
Decisions following an inquiry
Beslut e agningsprovet. I
In its detailed opinion on the drarecommendation, the Council concluded that paragraphs l-4, 13, 14 and 24 of document 13563/00 and points 18 and 14-16 of its Annex I are not covered by any exception and may be released.
2002 meddelade ersom han inte hade klarat 2002 ingav emellertid EKOSOK klaganden a Europaparlamentets uklaganden e
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, on the basis that the Council had taken adequate steps to satisfy the dra recommendation.
I siyrekrytera klaganden hade inleal av ”falska uppgi er som lämnats av klaganden”.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
BESLUTEFTEREN a ningsvis a