natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
21. připomíná, že dne 6. září 2001 Parlament schválil usnesení o Kodexu řádného úředního chování pro orgány a instituce EU a že od té doby opakovaně požadoval, aby byl tento kodex uplatňován všemi orgány a institucemi; lituje, že Komise doposud celý kodex neschválila a neuplatnila;
Recalls that Parliament adopted on 6 September 2001 a resolution on a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for EU institutions and bodies, and that it has since then repeatedly insisted that this code be applied by all institutions and bodies; regrets the failure by the Commission so far to fully adopt and apply the Code;
2 statutu veřejného ochránce práv v otázce přístupu veřejného ochránce práv k dokumentům a v otázce slyšení svědků, ke kterým Evropský parlament dne 6. září 2001
Is of the opinion that the Ombudsman should have unlimited access to documents in connexion with his inquiries; notes that almost six years have elapsed since the Ombudsman proposed changes to Article 3(2) of the Ombudsman's Statute concerning the Ombudsman's access to documents and his hearing of witnesses, on which the European Parliament adopted a resolution on 6 September 2001
1 Úř. věst.
OJ C72 E, 21.3.2002, p.
C72 E, 21.3.2002, s. 336 1 přijal usnesení; lituje toho, že kvalifikovaná většina v Radě neschválila toto usnesení
336. ; regrets that a qualified majority in the Council has not been able to give its approval to this resolution
2 Sdělení Rady 14782/02 OMBUDS 29 ze dne 26. listopadu 2002 2 ;
Council Note 14782/02 OMBUDS 29 of 26 November 2002. ;
26. oceňuje dobrý pracovní vztah mezi úřadem evropského veřejného ochránce práv a Petičním výborem, včetně postupu vzájemného předávání případů, pokud je to vhodné, což vedlo k přímému předání šesti stížností tomuto výboru a dalším 142 stěžovatelům bylo doporučeno předložit petici;
Acknowledges the good working relationship between the Ombudsman's office and the Comittee on Petitions, including a process of mutual transfer of cases where appropriate, which led to six complaints being transferred directly to that Committee and a further 142 complainants being advised to submit petitions;
29. pověřuje svého předsedu, aby předal toto usnesení a zprávu Komisi, Radě, evropskému veřejnému ochránci práv, vládám a parlamentům členských zemí a veřejným ochráncům práv nebo odpovídajícím orgánům v členských státech.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report to the Commission, the Council, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the ombudsmen or equivalent bodies in the Member States.
The European Ombudsman
The European Ombudsman
The office of European Ombudsman was established by the Maastricht Treaty and the right of citizens to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman forms part of the citizenship of the European Union.The Ombudsman investigates cases of maladministration in EU institutions and bodies.
The office of European Ombudsman was established by the Maastricht Treaty and the right of citizens to lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman forms part of the citizenship of the European Union.The Ombudsman investigates cases of maladministration in EU institutions and bodies.
He has provided the following definition of the term ‘maladministration’ which has also been approved by the European Parliament: ‘Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding on it’.
He has provided the following definition of the term ‘maladministration’ which has also been approved by the European Parliament: ‘Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding on it’.
The Ombudsman is guided here by the rules and principles set out in the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that concerns the right to good administration.
The Ombudsman is guided here by the rules and principles set out in the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights that concerns the right to good administration.
Where the Ombudsman observes maladministration the case can in some cases be settled by the institution concerned .
Where the Ombudsman observes maladministration the case can in some cases be settled by the institution concerned .
Where this does not happen, the Ombudsman may seek a friendly solution .
Where this does not happen, the Ombudsman may seek a friendly solution .
Where this is not possible, he may close the case with a critical remark or make a draft recommendation .
Where this is not possible, he may close the case with a critical remark or make a draft recommendation .
Where the institution concerned does not accept the recommendation, the Ombudsman may draw up a special report for the European Parliament.
Where the institution concerned does not accept the recommendation, the Ombudsman may draw up a special report for the European Parliament.
In addition, the Ombudsman is empowered to start inquiries on his own initiative in connection with systemic problems that come to his attention.
In addition, the Ombudsman is empowered to start inquiries on his own initiative in connection with systemic problems that come to his attention.
The Ombudsman’s annual report for 2003
The Ombudsman’s annual report for 2003
The 2003 Annual Report admirably outlines the activities of the European Ombudsman office during the course of the year.
The 2003 Annual Report admirably outlines the activities of the European Ombudsman office during the course of the year.
It covers the work of the founder Ombudsman, Mr Jacob Söderman, up to 31 March 2003 and that of Mr Diamandouros who took up office in April 2003.
It covers the work of the founder Ombudsman, Mr Jacob Söderman, up to 31 March 2003 and that of Mr Diamandouros who took up office in April 2003.
The rapporteur is delighted to recommend the Parliament's ratification of the Report.
The rapporteur is delighted to recommend the Parliament's ratification of the Report.
The activities recorded represent a key aspect of the democratic process and serve to embody the principles of transparency and accountability which must continue to be prime objectives of the European Institutions.
The activities recorded represent a key aspect of the democratic process and serve to embody the principles of transparency and accountability which must continue to be prime objectives of the European Institutions.
As is clear from the 2003 Annual Report the Ombudsman makes every possible effort to empower citizens by informing them of their rights in this respect; ensuring their easy access to adequate redress where possible; and ensuring that the Institutions constantly adopt better working practices to eliminate the causes of such grievances where possible.
As is clear from the 2003 Annual Report the Ombudsman makes every possible effort to empower citizens by informing them of their rights in this respect; ensuring their easy access to adequate redress where possible; and ensuring that the Institutions constantly adopt better working practices to eliminate the causes of such grievances where possible.
According to the annual report, 2 436 complaints were received in 2003, which corresponds to a 10% increase compared with 2002.
According to the annual report, 2 436 complaints were received in 2003, which corresponds to a 10% increase compared with 2002.
The Ombudsman announced at the meeting of the Committee on Petitions on 26 April 2004 at which he presented the annual report that a 40% increase was to be noted for the current year.
The Ombudsman announced at the meeting of the Committee on Petitions on 26 April 2004 at which he presented the annual report that a 40% increase was to be noted for the current year.
This increase shows that the Ombudsman has become better known.
This increase shows that the Ombudsman has become better known.
Both the previous and the current Ombudsman have themselves made a major contribution to spreading knowledge about their office.
Both the previous and the current Ombudsman have themselves made a major contribution to spreading knowledge about their office.
It can be recorded that the Ombudsman and his staff attended 80 conferences, seminars, etc. in 2003 and the Ombudsman has visited almost all Member States, both old and new.
It can be recorded that the Ombudsman and his staff attended 80 conferences, seminars, etc. in 2003 and the Ombudsman has visited almost all Member States, both old and new.
At the same time, however, there is little awareness of what falls within the Ombudsman’s mandate, since the overwhelming proportion of complaints fall outside his mandate.
At the same time, however, there is little awareness of what falls within the Ombudsman’s mandate, since the overwhelming proportion of complaints fall outside his mandate.
In these cases complainants are urged to contact other bodies, in particular, the Committee on Petitions and national or local ombudsmen.
In these cases complainants are urged to contact other bodies, in particular, the Committee on Petitions and national or local ombudsmen.
Investigations were initiated in 253 cases and decisions taken in 180 cases.
Investigations were initiated in 253 cases and decisions taken in 180 cases.
In 87 cases, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no evidence of maladministration.
In 87 cases, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no evidence of maladministration.
48 cases were settled by the relevant institution.
48 cases were settled by the relevant institution.
The annual report describes a selection of cases dealt with during 2003.
The annual report describes a selection of cases dealt with during 2003.
A brief account of certain categories of cases is given below.
A brief account of certain categories of cases is given below.
- Access to documents
- Access to documents
The previous Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, made a considerable effort over the years to achieve a situation in which the institutions make their documents available to the public
The previous Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, made a considerable effort over the years to achieve a situation in which the institutions make their documents available to the public
It should be remembered that Parliament has on a previous occasion received a special report on the problem of access to documents in connection with the recommendation to the Council in complaint 917/2000 by the British NGO 'Statewatch'.
It should be remembered that Parliament has on a previous occasion received a special report on the problem of access to documents in connection with the recommendation to the Council in complaint 917/2000 by the British NGO 'Statewatch'.
The Committee on Petitions drew up a report with Astrid Thors as rapporteur
The Committee on Petitions drew up a report with Astrid Thors as rapporteur
The Council had declined to grant access to certain sections of the documents by invoking Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 which allows access to be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process.
The Council had declined to grant access to certain sections of the documents by invoking Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 which allows access to be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process.
These sections concerned the proposals and positions of national delegations.
These sections concerned the proposals and positions of national delegations.
The complainant and the Ombudsman were of the opinion that it was sufficient to delete the delegation’s name and then to release the text as such to the complainant.
The complainant and the Ombudsman were of the opinion that it was sufficient to delete the delegation’s name and then to release the text as such to the complainant.
The Council had deleted entire passages from the text.
The Council had deleted entire passages from the text.
The case concluded with a critical remark whereupon the Council decided to grant the complainant access to the documents in their entirety.
The case concluded with a critical remark whereupon the Council decided to grant the complainant access to the documents in their entirety.
Complaint 1015/2002 concerned, among other things, the Council’s refusal to grant access to opinions from the Council’s Legal Service.
Complaint 1015/2002 concerned, among other things, the Council’s refusal to grant access to opinions from the Council’s Legal Service.
The Council declined initially to grant access to these documents by invoking Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 which allows the institutions under certain circumstances to refuse access inter alia to legal opinions.
The Council declined initially to grant access to these documents by invoking Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 which allows the institutions under certain circumstances to refuse access inter alia to legal opinions.
The Council had given a general refusal.
The Council had given a general refusal.
The Ombudsman requested that access be given to these documents and emphasised that a distinction should be made between legal opinions connected with legal proceedings which are normally not published and opinions on draft legislation which ought to be accessible to the public.
The Ombudsman requested that access be given to these documents and emphasised that a distinction should be made between legal opinions connected with legal proceedings which are normally not published and opinions on draft legislation which ought to be accessible to the public.
These two examples show that the institutions are still reluctant about granting access to documents and that they have not understood that free access to documents is the rule and that there is nothing automatic about derogations but that it is necessary to decide on a case-by-case basis.
These two examples show that the institutions are still reluctant about granting access to documents and that they have not understood that free access to documents is the rule and that there is nothing automatic about derogations but that it is necessary to decide on a case-by-case basis.
In this context it should be mentioned that the European Parliament has clearly stated in its resolution of 14 March 2002
In this context it should be mentioned that the European Parliament has clearly stated in its resolution of 14 March 2002
1 OJ C47 E, 27.2.2003, p.483 1 on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that it disagreees with the Commission that continues to deny access to documents concerning infringement procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty.
OJ C47 E, 27.2.2003, p.483. on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that it disagreees with the Commission that continues to deny access to documents concerning infringement procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty.
The Committee on Petitions has repeatedly and in vain tried to obtain information on cases where the Commission has, often as a result of petitions submitted to the European Parliament, opened an infringement procedure against a Member State.
The Committee on Petitions has repeatedly and in vain tried to obtain information on cases where the Commission has, often as a result of petitions submitted to the European Parliament, opened an infringement procedure against a Member State.
- More openness in connection with recruitment competitions
- More openness in connection with recruitment competitions
The Ombudsman has over the years received a large number of complaints from citizens about lack of transparency and openness in connection with recruitment competitions.
The Ombudsman has over the years received a large number of complaints from citizens about lack of transparency and openness in connection with recruitment competitions.
Since one of the Ombudsman’s chief objectives is to improve relations between the institutions and the general public and since a large number of citizens come into contact for the first time with an institution in connection with a recruitment competition, it is important that they receive a good impression.
Since one of the Ombudsman’s chief objectives is to improve relations between the institutions and the general public and since a large number of citizens come into contact for the first time with an institution in connection with a recruitment competition, it is important that they receive a good impression.
In 1999 the Ombudsman submitted to Parliament a special report on the Commission’s recruitment procedures on which the Committee on Petitions drew up a report with Herbert Bösch as rapporteur
In 1999 the Ombudsman submitted to Parliament a special report on the Commission’s recruitment procedures on which the Committee on Petitions drew up a report with Herbert Bösch as rapporteur
The Ombudsman’s recommendation that candidates ought to have access to their marked examination scripts was accepted by the Commission back in 1999 and later in 2000 by the European Parliament.
The Ombudsman’s recommendation that candidates ought to have access to their marked examination scripts was accepted by the Commission back in 1999 and later in 2000 by the European Parliament.
In 2003 the Ombudsman dealt with two complaints (2097/2002 and 2059/2002) on the Council’s refusal to grant access to marked examination scripts.
In 2003 the Ombudsman dealt with two complaints (2097/2002 and 2059/2002) on the Council’s refusal to grant access to marked examination scripts.
Following a recommendation from the Ombudsman the Council too has now at last agreed to alter its rules.
Following a recommendation from the Ombudsman the Council too has now at last agreed to alter its rules.
It can therefore now be said that all candidates in recruitment competitions have access to their marked examination scripts.
It can therefore now be said that all candidates in recruitment competitions have access to their marked examination scripts.
Complaint 341/2001 concerned the European Parliament’s refusal to inform the complainant of the names of the successful candidates in a recruitment competition and the points they obtained.
Complaint 341/2001 concerned the European Parliament’s refusal to inform the complainant of the names of the successful candidates in a recruitment competition and the points they obtained.
The Ombudsman addressed a recommendation to Parliament calling on it to ensure that in future the institution produced such a list and, moreover, informed all candidates that such a list would be published.
The Ombudsman addressed a recommendation to Parliament calling on it to ensure that in future the institution produced such a list and, moreover, informed all candidates that such a list would be published.
Parliament initially refused to follow the recommendation.
Parliament initially refused to follow the recommendation.
The Ombudsman then decided to draw up a special report, following which Parliament chose to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation.
The Ombudsman then decided to draw up a special report, following which Parliament chose to follow the Ombudsman’s recommendation.
The fact that age limits no longer apply in the institutions’ recruitment competitions is also thanks to the efforts of the Ombudsman.
The fact that age limits no longer apply in the institutions’ recruitment competitions is also thanks to the efforts of the Ombudsman.
Most of the recruitment competitions in the EU will in the future be organised by EPSO (European Personnel Selection Office).
Most of the recruitment competitions in the EU will in the future be organised by EPSO (European Personnel Selection Office).
A recommendation should be addressed to EPSO that it also comply with the rules on openness and transparency which have been introduced not least thanks to the efforts of the Ombudsman.
A recommendation should be addressed to EPSO that it also comply with the rules on openness and transparency which have been introduced not least thanks to the efforts of the Ombudsman.
- Cases of delay, failure to answer correspondence, discourteous language, etc.
- Cases of delay, failure to answer correspondence, discourteous language, etc.
A number of complaints could have been avoided if the complainants had received a satisfactory answer in time.
A number of complaints could have been avoided if the complainants had received a satisfactory answer in time.
Cases often arise where the institution has in fact acted correctly but has failed to explain to the complainant the reasons why it has acted as it has done.
Cases often arise where the institution has in fact acted correctly but has failed to explain to the complainant the reasons why it has acted as it has done.
Such cases may give rise to a critical remark from the Ombudsman.
Such cases may give rise to a critical remark from the Ombudsman.
A participant in a recruitment competition had not understood the difference between ‘having obtained the necessary number of points’ and ‘entered on the reserve list’ and was accused of wanting to ‘cheat’.
A participant in a recruitment competition had not understood the difference between ‘having obtained the necessary number of points’ and ‘entered on the reserve list’ and was accused of wanting to ‘cheat’.
EU officials can be inclined to forget that it may be difficult for outsiders to understand the way the institutions operate as well as EU jargon.
EU officials can be inclined to forget that it may be difficult for outsiders to understand the way the institutions operate as well as EU jargon.
Another case concerns an employee at the EU police mission in Sarajevo who was dismissed for misconduct.
Another case concerns an employee at the EU police mission in Sarajevo who was dismissed for misconduct.
The dismissal was apparently justified but the person in question was not given an opportunity to express his view of the matter.
The dismissal was apparently justified but the person in question was not given an opportunity to express his view of the matter.
Discourteous language may also result in a critical remark.
Discourteous language may also result in a critical remark.
The message needs to be got across to the institutions that proper and satisfactory communication with complainants is in their own interest.
The message needs to be got across to the institutions that proper and satisfactory communication with complainants is in their own interest.
- The European code of good administrative behaviour
- The European code of good administrative behaviour
In 1999 the Ombudsman put forward a proposal for a code of good administrative behaviour for EU institutions and bodies.
In 1999 the Ombudsman put forward a proposal for a code of good administrative behaviour for EU institutions and bodies.
The Committee on Petitions drew up a report on this proposal with Roy Perry as rapporteur
The Committee on Petitions drew up a report on this proposal with Roy Perry as rapporteur
On 6 September 2001 Parliament adopted the resolution
On 6 September 2001 Parliament adopted the resolution
Most institutions and bodies have adopted the code as a guideline for their relations with the general public.
Most institutions and bodies have adopted the code as a guideline for their relations with the general public.
Since it is of the utmost importance that all institutions follow the same code, the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions have repeatedly called on the Commission to adopt the common code.
Since it is of the utmost importance that all institutions follow the same code, the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions have repeatedly called on the Commission to adopt the common code.