Examples of using Instance of maladministration in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
A critical remark is normally made if itis no longer possible to eliminate the instance of maladministration.
If the inquiries reveal no instance of maladministration, the complainant and the institution or body are informed accordingly and the case is closed.
As regardsthis aspect of the case, the Ombudsman therefore found no instance of maladministration.
In cases where it is still possible to eliminate the instance of maladministration, I normally make a draft recommendation to the institution, which must respond with a detailed opinion.
In 112 cases, the Ombudsman's inquiries revealed no instance of maladministration.
In the present case, however,he considered that there had been no instance of maladministration because the Commission decision refusing to allow Mr Lamberts to re-sit the interview had not infringed any rule binding upon the Commission.
Therefore the fact that the deci sion wasonly published on 19 April 1997 did not constitute an instance of maladministration.
In cases where followup action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary, that is,where it is possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, or in cases where the maladministration is particularly serious, or has general implications, the Ombudsman normally makes a dra recommendation to the institution or body concerned.
The Commission's failure to provide such explanations inwriting in the present case thus constitutes an instance of maladministration.
In cases where follow-up action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary, that is,where it is possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, or in cases where the maladministration is particularly serious, or has general implications, the Ombudsman normally makes a dra recommendation to the institution or body concerned.
Under these circumstances, the fact that the Commission did not send him acopy of the decision did not constitute an instance of maladministration.
He found that the Commission's failure to publish the2005 report before the end of 2006 was an instance of maladministration and made a critical remark.
Principles of good administrative behaviour require also that letters fromcitizens to the Parliament administration receive a reply within a reasonabletime limit. In the present case it appeared that the Parliament failed to replyto the various letters from the complainants. The Parliament did not give the Ombudsman a valid reason why it could not provide the complainants witha reply, possibly a holding reply.This failure to reply therefore constitutedan instance of maladministration.
Thus, it appeared that the fact that the complainant was not recruited to the post as executivedirector of the project did not constitute an instance of maladministration in the activities of the Commission.
In view of these findings and taking into account that the Commission had regretted its failure to notify the complainant and that it would take the necessary measures to ensure that such fail ure did not occur in the future,the Ombudsman's inquiries did not reveal any instance of maladministration.
As far as possible, the Ombudsman shall seek a solution with the institution orbody concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.”.
The fact that the Commission only replied after one year to the complainants letter of 21 November 1995 which con tained new information withregard to his original complaint constituted therefore an instance of maladministration.
As far as possible, the Ombudsman shall seek a solution with the institution orbody concerned to eliminatethe instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.”.
Therefore, the fact that in the present case the Commission did not inform the complainant about the fact and the reasons why it did not register the complaint, and even left the complainant during 17 months without any writteninformation about the outcome of his complaint, constituted an instance of maladministration.
In May 1997, Mr G. made a complaint to the Ombudsmanalleging that the Commission's recruitment policy constituted an instance of maladministration.
Principles of good administrative behaviour require that complainantswho write to the Commission receive a reply within a reasonable time. Therefore, the fact that the Commission only replied on 30 November1998 to the complainant'scorrespondence of 28 November 1997 constituted an instance of maladministration.
He alleged that application of Regulation 3904/92 by the Commission had been deficient and that this constituted an instance of maladministration.
Therefore, the fact that certain publications asked for by the complainant were not immediatelyavailable in Germany could not be considered as an instance of maladministration.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered thatthe complainant's continued listing in the EWS was unfair and constituted an instance of maladministration.
Therefore, the Ombudsman found that the fact that the Parliament. had not provided for a general possibility for joining the scheme withretroactive effect did not constitute an instance of maladministration.
In view of the highprofessional experience and good qualifications of all the selected candidates, the Ombudsman considered that there was no instance of maladministration.
In reviewing the course of action chosen by the Commission, the Ombudsman found thatthe institution had acted within the limits of its legal authority and therefore that no instance of maladministration had been established.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that in this case the Commission respected the undertakings it made with regard to the Article 226 procedure and explained to the complainant the reasonswhy it decided not to start an infringement proceeding against the UKauthorities.The Commission acted thus within the limits of its legalauthority and no instance of maladministration was found.
Moreover, the Treaty of Maastricht produced a qualitative leap in European citizenship by offering all citizens the possibility of submitting petitions to a parliamentary body, which remains the sole arbitrator, or applying to a more specialised body which, while operating on an extrajudicial basis, follows a procedure which does not rule out parliamentaryintervention in the event of the Community institution responsible for the instance of maladministration proving reluctant to cooperate.