natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3. the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the a4 ention of the complainant (Article 2(4) of the Statute);
3. kaebus tuleb esitada kahe aasta jooksul alates ajast, mil kaebuse aluseks olevad asjaolud said kaebuse esitajale teatavaks (põhikirja artikli 2 lõige 4);
”As far as possible, the Ombudsman shall seek a solution with the institution or body concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.”
„Ombudsman püüab koostöös asjaomase institutsiooni või asutusega leida võimaluse antud haldusliku omavoli juhtum lahendada ja rahuldada esitatud kaebus.”
”If the Ombudsman finds maladministration, as far as possible he cooperates with the institution concerned in seeking a friendly solution to eliminate it and to satisfy the complainant.”
„Kui ombudsman tuvastab haldusliku omavoli juhtumi, teeb ta võimalikult tihedat koostööd asjaomase institutsiooniga püüdes leida sõbraliku lahenduse haldusliku omavoli kõrvaldamiseks ja kaebuse rahuldamiseks.”
4. the complaint must have been preceded by appropriate administrative approaches to the institution or body concerned (Article 2(4) of the Statute); and
4. enne kaebuse esitamist peab kaebuse esitaja olema pöördunud selleks e enähtud halduskorras asjaomaste institutsioonide ja asutuste poole (põhikirja artikli 2 lõige 4); ning
5. in the case of complaints concerning work relationships between the institutions and bodies and their o cials and servants, the possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaints must have been exhausted before lodging the complaint (Article 2(8) of the Statute).
5. ühenduse institutsioonide ja asutuste ning nende ametnike ja muude teenistujate vaheliste töösuhete kohta esitatud kaebuste korral tuleb enne kaebuse esitamist kasutada ära kõik ametkonnasisesed nõuete ja kaebuste esitamise võimalused (põhikirja artikli 2 lõige 8).
Article 195 of the EC Treaty provides for the Ombudsman to “conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds”.
EÜ asutamislepingu artikkel 195 näeb e e, et ombudsman korraldab uurimise, kui ta leiab selleks olevat alust.
In some cases, there may not be su cient grounds for the Ombudsman to begin an inquiry, even though the complaint is admissible.
Mõnikord võib juhtuda, et ombudsmanil ei ole uurimise alustamiseks piisavat alust, ehkki kaebus on vastuvõetav.
Three examples of such cases are given below.
Kolm sellist juhtumit on esitatud allpool.
The Ombudsman also takes the view that, if a complaint has already been dealt with as a petition by the Commi4 ee on Petitions of the European Parliament, there are normally no grounds for an inquiry by the Ombudsman, unless new evidence is presented.
Ombudsman on seisukohal, et kui Euroopa Parlamendi petitsioonikomisjon on teatud kaebust petitsioonina juba käsitlenud, siis ei ole tal uurimise algatamiseks üldjuhul alust, välja arvatud uute tõendite esitamise korral.
Overall, 42% of the admissible cases dealt with in 2007 were considered not to provide grounds for an inquiry.
2007. aastal puudus vastuvõetavatest kaebustest 42 % korral uurimise algatamiseks piisav alus.
Examples of complaints in which there were no grounds to start an inquiry
Näited kaebustest, mille korral puudus uurimise algatamiseks piisav alus
A Romanian citizen approached the European Commission alleging that a car registration tax imposed by the Romanian authorities infringes Community law.
Rumeenia kodanik pöördus Euroopa Komisjoni poole väitega, et Rumeenia valitsuse kehtestatud autoregistreerimismaks rikub ühenduse õigust.
In response, the Commission informed the complainant that it had opened an infringement procedure against Romania to ensure that there is no discrimination against imported used cars.
Komisjon teatas kaebuse esitajale vastuseks, et algatas rikkumismenetluse Rumeenia vastu, et tagada mittediskrimineerimine kasutatud importautode korral.
The Commission added that it had not asked Romania to abolish the tax altogether, since there is no legal basis in Community law for making such a claim.
Komisjon lisas, et ta ei ole nõudnud Rumeenialt maksu täielikku tühistamist, sest sellise nõude esitamiseks puudub ühenduse õiguses seaduslik alus.
In reply to a further submission by the same citizen, the Commission stated that it was currently examining Romanian draft legislation, which is supposed to introduce the necessary amendments to the Romanian rules on car taxation in order to bring them in line with Article 90 of the EC Treaty.
Komisjon märkis sama kodaniku hilisema nõude osas, et uuris sel ajal Rumeenia seaduseelnõusid, millega kavandatakse teha vajalikud muudatused Rumeenia autode maksustamist reguleerivates eeskirjades, et viia need kooskõlla EÜ asutamislepingu artikliga 90.
In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission’s replies.
Kaebuse esitaja väljendas Euroopa ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuses rahulolematust komisjoni vastustega.
He claimed that the Commission should require that the Romanian authorities abolish or reduce the car registration tax.
Tema väitel peaks komisjon nõudma Rumeenialt autoregistreerimismaksu tühistamist või vähendamist.
The Ombudsman took the view that the explanations that had been provided by the Commission were reasonable and that there were no grounds to open an inquiry.
Ombudsman võttis seisukoha, et komisjoni antud selgitused olid mõistlikud ning et uurimise algatamiseks puudub alus.
In the spirit of good cooperation underlying the Statement adopted by the European Network of Ombudsmen (see Chapter 5) and taking into account that the complainant had also expressed dissatisfaction with the Romanian authorities, the European Ombudsman considered it useful to inform the Romanian Ombudsman of the complaint and of the ongoing infringement proceedings.
Euroopa ombudsmanide võrgustiku (vt 5. peatükk) vastuvõetud avalduses rõhutatud hea koostöö vaimus, samuti arvestades asjaolu, et kaebuse esitaja oli samuti väljendanud rahulolematust Rumeenia ametiasutuste suhtes, leidis Euroopa ombudsman, et kaebusest ja toimuvast rikkumismenetlusest on mõistlik teatada Rumeenia ombudsmanile.
The European Ombudsman also informed the Commission of the above and suggested that the Romanian Ombudsman should be kept informed of further steps in the infringement procedure.
Euroopa ombudsman teatas ülalesitatu ka komisjonile ning tegi ettepaneku, et Rumeenia ombudsmani hoitaks rikkumismenetluse edasiste arengutega kursis.
The Ombudsman carefully reviewed the case submitted by the complainant.
Ombudsman vaatas kaebuse hoolikalt läbi.
As regards the request for leniency, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission only makes a final decision on leniency when it closes the relevant inquiry.
Leebe kohtlemise taotluse kohta märkis ombudsman, et komisjon võtab selles osas seisukoha asjaomase uurimise lõppotsuses.
By providing the complainant with information about the Commission’s view of the likelihood of leniency and by granting the complainant an extension of the deadline for submitting its observations on the Statement of Objections, the Commission had allowed the complainant to exercise its rights of defence.
Edastades kaebuse esitajale teavet oma seisukoha kohta leebe kohtlemise määramise tõenäosuse osas ning pikendades kaebuse esitaja jaoks komisjoni vastuväiteavaldusele tähelepanekute esitamise tähtaega, andis komisjon kaebuse esitajale võimaluse oma õiguste kaitseks.
As regards the return of documents, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission had supplied certain confidential documents to the complainant in error and that, in accordance with the relevant legislation, it was entitled, and even obliged, to seek their return.
Dokumentide tagastamise osas märkis ombudsman, et komisjon oli kaebuse esitajale ekslikult andnud teatud konfidentsiaalsed dokumendid ning et asjakohaste õigusaktide alusel oli komisjon õigustatud ja isegi kohustatud nende tagastamist nõudma.
Although the Commission should take account of any obligations the company might have under Italian criminal law in relation to the documents, the complainant had not provided evidence that the Commission had failed to do so.
Kuigi komisjon peaks arvesse võtma kõiki Itaalia kriminaalõigusest tulenevaid kohustusi, mis võivad kõnealusel ettevõttel olla nende dokumentidega seoses, ei esitanud kaebuse esitaja tõendeid selle kohta, et komisjon seda ei teinud.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that there were no grounds to open an inquiry.
Ombudsman järeldas seetõttu, et uurimise algatamiseks puudub alus.
During 2007, the Ombudsman received 39211 new complaints, compared to 39830 in 2006.
2007. aastal laekus ombudsmanile 3 211 uut kaebust, võrreldes 3 830 kaebusega 2006. aastal.
In accordance with established practice, all complaints that give rise to an inquiry are counted in the statistics produced by the Ombudsman.
Väljakujunenud tava kohaselt kajastuvad ombudsmani koostatud statistikas kõik kaebused, mis annavad põhjust uurimise alustamiseks.
To avoid distortion, however, inadmissible mass complaints sent by e-mail, which o en number several thousand, are only counted separately in the statistics up to and including the eleventh complaint.
Moonutuste vältimiseks võetakse elektronposti teel saabunud tuhandetest vastuvõetamatutest masskaebustest statistikas eraldi arvesse üksnes esimesed 11 kaebust.
Complaints were sent directly by individual citizens in 3 056 cases and 155 came from associations or companies.
3 056 juhul saabusid kaebused otse üksikkodanikelt ja 155 kaebust saabus organisatsioonidelt või äriühingutelt.
During 2007, the process of examining complaints to see if they are within the mandate, meet the criteria of admissibility, and provide grounds to open an inquiry was completed in 95% of cases.
2007. aastal viidi lõpule kaebuste läbivaatamise protsess, mille eesmärk on selgitada, kas kaebus kuulub ombudsmani pädevusse, täidab vastuvõetavuse kriteeriumid ja annab alust uurimise algatamiseks, 95 %-l juhtudest.
Of all the complaints examined, just over 26% were within the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Kõigist läbivaadatud kaebustest kuulus ombudsmani pädevusse pisut üle 26 %.
Of these, 518 met the criteria of admissibility but 215 did not provide grounds for an inquiry.
Neist 518 kaebust täitis vastuvõetavuse kriteeriumid, ent 215 juhul puudus uurimise algatamiseks piisav alus.
A total of 303 new inquiries were opened during the year on the basis of complaints.
Kõnealusel aastal algatati kaebuste põhjal kokku 303 uut uurimist.
The Ombudsman also began six inquiries on his own initiative.
Ombudsman algatas ka kuus omaalgatuslikku uurimist.
A statistical analysis of these inquiries is provided in Annex A.
Lisas A on esitatud kõnealuste uurimiste statistiline analüüs.
TRANSFERS AND ADVICE
EDASTAMINEJA NÕUANDED
If a complaint is outside the mandate, the Ombudsman tries to advise the complainant of another body that could deal with the complaint, especially if the case involves EU law.
Kui kaebus ei kuulu ombudsmani pädevusse, püüab ta alati soovitada kaebuse esitajale muud asutust, kes võiks kaebusega tegeleda, eelkõige juhul, kui juhtum puudutab Euroopa Liidu õigust.
If possible, and provided there appear to be grounds for the complaint, the Ombudsman, with the consent of the complainant, transfers it directly to another competent body.
Võimaluse korral ning eeldusel, et kaebusel on piisavat alust, edastab ombudsman kaebuse esitaja nõusolekul kaebuse vahetult teisele pädevale asutusele.
As already noted, the European Ombudsman cooperates closely with his national and regional counterparts in the Member States through the European Network of Ombudsmen (see Chapter 5 below).
Nagu eelnevalt märgitud, teeb Euroopa ombudsman tihedat koostööd riiklike ja piirkondlike ombudsmanidega Euroopa ombudsmanide võrgustiku kaudu (vt 5. ptk).
One of the purposes of the Network is to facilitate the rapid transfer of complaints to the competent national or regional ombudsman or similar body.
Võrgustiku üks eesmärke on hõlbustada kaebuste viivitamatut edastamist pädevale riiklikule või piirkondlikule ombudsmanile või samalaadsele asutusele.
The Commi4 ee on Petitions of the European Parliament also participates in the Network as a full member.
Ka Euroopa Parlamendi petitsioonikomisjon osaleb võrgustiku töös täisliikmena.
During 2007, 92 complaints were transferred.
2007. aasta jooksul edastati 92 kaebust.
Of these, 51 were forwarded to a national or regional
Nendest 51 edastati riiklikule või piirkondlikule
6, seven to ombudsman, 20 to the European Parliament to be dealt with as petitions, 12 to SOLVITthe European Commission and two to other bodies.
6 ombudsmanile, 20 esitati petitsioonina käsitlemiseks Euroopa Parlamendile, 12 SOLVITile
Examples of cases involving the European Network of Ombudsmen
Kaebuse esitaja arvates on nimetatud maks samaväärne imporditollimaksuga.
The complainant’s mother had worked in France and was now living in Brazil.The French state pension fund CRAM had suspended her pension payments in 2002 because of di culties with the Brazilian banking system.
Euroopa ombudsman soovitas kaebuse esitajal pöörduda Iiri ombudsmani poole, kelle teenistus oli eelnevalt kinnitanud, et kaebuse esitaja võib neile kirjutada tšehhi keeles, kui tal peaks olema inglise keelega raskusi.
The case was transferred to the French Ombudsman, who informed the European Ombudsman in March 2007 that a solution had been found.
Samuti teatas Euroopa ombudsman kaebuse esitajale, et kui probleemile ei leita lahendust riiklikul tasemel, võib kaebuse esitaja kaaluda kaebuse esitamist komisjonile.
The complainant’s mother had obtained a banking domiciliation in a Brazilian bank, approved by the financial body which pays pensions on behalf of CRAM.
Euroopa ombudsman juhtis tähelepanu asjakohasele
On 5 February 2007, the amounts due had been reimbursed to the complainant’s mother.
7 kasutatud importautode maksustamist puudutavale pretsedendiõigusele
A Spanish citizen complained that the “Via Verde” system for discounted payment of Portuguese motorway tolls is not available to citizens of the EU who are not resident in Portugal.
Komisjoni ja Portugali ametiasutuste tegevuse toimuv uurimine
After conducting an inquiry, the Portuguese Ombudsman reported that the “Via Verde” system involves automatic deduction of tolls from the user’s bank account.
Kaebuse esitaja alustas 2001. aastal Nazaré sadamas (Kesk-Portugal) karpide kasvatamist ja aretamist. Mõne kuu möödudes märkas kaebuse esitaja, et karpide suremus on märkimisväärselt suurenenud.
To benefit from the system, the user must have an account with a bank belonging to the “Multibanco” network, which includes two Spanish banks.
Sadama vee analüüs näitas teatud ainete, eriti kattumisvastastes värvides kasutatava tributültiini suurt sisaldust.
The Portuguese Ombudsman also noted that, although the limitations of the current system might be questioned on the basis of the principles of contractual freedom and competition in the banking sector, Directive 2004/52/EC on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community should create a uniform system of electronic road toll payment at the European level by 2011.
Kaebuse esitaja väitel kasutatakse Portugalis kattumisvastaseid värve ulatuslikult laevade ja kalapaatide keredel ning neid müüakse kaluritele sadama haldusalas ja ka teistes Kesk-Portugali sadamates piiranguteta.
In light of the above, the Portuguese Ombudsman concluded that further inquires into the complaint were unnecessary and closed the case.
Pärast seda, kui kaebuse esitaja oli probleemiga edutult pöördunud Portugali ametiasutuste poole, esitas ta Portugali kohta kaebuse komisjonile.
A Finnish citizen residing in Sweden complained to the European Ombudsman that the Swedish Social Insurance Agency had incorrectly calculated his entitlement to sickness benefit. t.
Kaebuse esitaja väljendas Euroopa ombudsmanile esitatud kaebuses arvamust, et Portugali ametiasutused on ilmselgelt andnud komisjonile ebaõiget teavet.
Since the complaint was against a national authority, the European Ombudsman advised the complainant to turn to the Swedish Ombudsman.
Samuti teatas ta kaebusest Portugali ombudsmanile, kes otsustas Euroopa ombudsmani edastatud teabe põhjal Portugali ametiasutuste tegevust uurida ning teatas sellest ka Portugali peaprokurörile.
The European Ombudsman also wrote to the Swedish Ombudsman to inform him that the complaint raised a question of the correct application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community.
Euroopa ombudsman ja Portugali ombudsman hoiavad üksteist uurimiste arengutega kursis.
A Czech citizen working in Ireland complained that the Irish tax authorities had detained his car, which was registered in the Czech Republic, because he had not paid the IrishVehicle Registration Tax.
Bulgaaria kodanik esitas Euroopa ombudsmanile kaebuse selle kohta, et direktiivi 2002/22/EÜ artiklit 30, mis annab tarbijatele teenusepakkuja vahetamise korral õiguse jätta alles oma mobiiltelefoninumber, ei rakendata Bulgaarias ja komisjon ei ole sellele tähelepanu pööranud.
According to the complainant this tax is equivalent to an import tax.
Kaebuse esitaja nõudis, et komisjon alustaks rikkumismenetlust.
The European Ombudsman advised the complainant to address the Irish Ombudsman, whose services had confirmed that the complainant could write to them in the Czech language if he had di culties with English.
Kaebuse esitaja nähtavasti ei teinud seda. Seetõttu leidis ombudsman, et kaebus komisjoni vastu on vastuvõetamatu, sest kaebuse esitaja ei olnud eelnevalt ära kasutanud kõiki nõuete ja kaebuse halduskorras esitamise võimalusi.
The European Ombudsman also informed the complainant that, if the matter could not be resolved at the national level, he could consider making a complaint to the Commission.
Ombudsman märkis, et vormi, millel saata komisjonile kaebus ühenduse õiguse rikkumise kohta liikmesriigi poolt, ei olnud bulgaaria keeles veel olemas.
The European Ombudsman also drew attention to
Juhtumi põhiteema osas saatis ombudsman kaebuse edasi komisjonile, et too käsitleks seda rikkumiskaebusena Bulgaaria vastu.
7 the relevant case-law concerning taxation of imported used cars.
Samuti palus ombudsman komisjoni, et talle teatataks, kui kasutusele võetakse kaebusvormi bulgaariakeelne versioon.
Case C-47/88 Commission v Denmark, [1990] ECR I-4509, paragraphs 10, 21 and 22.
Kohtuasi C-47/88, komisjon versus Taani, [1990] EKL I-4509, punktid 10, 21 ja 22.
In reply, the Commission explained that the Bulgarian law on electronic communications, transposing the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, had been adopted on 10 May 2007.
Komisjon selgitas vastuseks, et Bulgaaria elektroonilise side seadus, millega võetakse üle Euroopa Liidu elektroonilise side õigusraamistik, võeti vastu 10. mail 2007.
It stated that it would examine this legislation and consider any appropriate measures in order to ensure the correct implementation of the EU regulatory framework.
Komisjon märkis, et ta uurib nimetatud õigusakti ning kaalub asjakohaste meetmete võtmist, et tagada Euroopa Liidu õigusraamistiku nõuetekohane kohaldamine.
It also provided the link to the Bulgarian version of the complaint form which had in the meantime been made available.
Samuti edastas komisjon lingi kaebuse vormi bulgaariakeelsele versioonile, mis võeti vahepeal kasutusele.
In 2006, the Ombudsman received several complaints from Spanish citizens against the manufacturer of the drug Agreal.
2006. aastal saabus ombudsmanile Hispaania kodanikelt mitu kaebust ravimi Agreal tootja peale.
According to the complainants, they had su ered a number of serious health e ects after taking the drug, such as headaches, depression, and lack of mobility.
Kaebuse esitajate väitel olid neil ravimi kasutamisel ilmnenud rasked kõrvalnähud, näiteks peavalud, depressioon ja liikumisvõimetus.
The complainants sought to have the product banned.
Kaebuse esitajad taotlesid nimetatud ravimi keelustamist.
Since the Commission is the Institution which has the necessary legal powers at the EU level to take action on such matters, the Ombudsman transferred the cases to the Commission.
Et selliste juhtumite korral on vajalik õiguspädevus Euroopa Liidu tasandil tegutsemiseks komisjonil, edastas ombudsman kaebused komisjonile.
The Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman that it had asked the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for advice on whether Community action would be necessary.
Seejärel teatas komisjon ombudsmanile, et ta palus Euroopa Ravimiametilt (EMEA) nõu, kas käesoleval juhul on vaja tegutseda ühenduse tasandil.
In July 2007, EMEA announced that it had recommended to the Commission that all drugs containing the substance“veralipride”, including Agreal, be withdrawn from the European market.
EMEA teatas 2007. aasta juulis, et ta soovitas komisjonil Euroopa turult eemaldada kõik ravimid, mis sisaldavad veralipriidi, sealhulgas Agreali.
The Commission subsequently adopted a decision requiring Member States to revoke marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing“velalipride”, as the benefit-risk balance was considered negative.
Seejärel võttis komisjon vastu otsuse, milles nõudis, et liikmesriigid tühistaksid veralipriidi sisaldavate ravimite müügiload seoses asjaoluga, et kasulikkuse ja riski suhet peetakse negatiivseks.
Example of a case transferred to SOLVIT
SOLVITile edastatud juhtumi näide
The complainant was a Bulgarian citizen who had obtained his diploma as a medical doctor in Bulgaria.
Kaebuse esitaja oli Bulgaaria kodanik, kes oli saanud arstidiplomi Bulgaarias.
Following Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, he wished to practise medicine in France and obtained a conformity certificate for his diploma from the Bulgarian Ministry of Health.
Pärast Bulgaaria liitumist Euroopa Liiduga soovis ta töötada arstina Prantsusmaal ja omandas Bulgaaria tervishoiuministeeriumilt diplomi vastavustunnistuse.
The French National Council of Physicians rejected the conformity certi cate, however, because it did not mention Directive 93/16.
Prantsusmaa arstide nõukogu lükkas vastavustunnistuse aga tagasi, sest selles puudus viide direktiivile 93/16/EMÜ.
The Bulgarian authorities insisted that the certificate was valid without the reference in question.
Bulgaaria ametiasutused ent jäid seisukohale, et tunnistus kehtib ka juhul, kui puudub kõnealune viide.
The Ombudsman transferred the complaint to the Bulgarian SOLVIT Centre, which informed the Ombudsman shortly thereafter that the case had been successfully resolved and that the complainant had been provided with a conformity certificate which allows him to practise his profession in France.
Ombudsman edastas kaebuse Bulgaaria SOLVIT-keskusele, kes peagi teatas ombudsmanile, et juhtum on edukalt lahendatud ja kaebuse esitajale on antud vastavustunnistus, mis võimaldab tal töötada arstina Prantsusmaal.
Advice was given in 1 862 cases.
Nõu anti 1862 juhtumi korral.
In 816 of these, complainants were advised to turn to a national or regional ombudsman and in 109 cases to petition the European Parliament.
Neist 816 juhtumi korral soovitati kaebuse esitajal pöörduda liikmesriigi või piirkondliku ombudsmani poole ja 109 juhtumi korral soovitati kaebuse esitajal esitada petitsioon Euroopa Parlamendile.
In 308 cases, the recommendation was to contact the European Commission.
308 juhtumi korral soovitati pöörduda Euroopa Komisjoni poole.
This figure includes some cases in which a complaint against the Commission was declared inadmissible because appropriate administrative approaches to the institution had not been made before the complaint was lodged.
See arv sisaldab juhtumeid, kus komisjoni vastu esitatud kaebus tunnistati vastuvõetamatuks, sest enne kaebuse esitamist ei olnud ammendavalt ära kasutatud asjakohaste haldusmenetluste võimalusi.