natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Differences between notices of competition did not constitute discrimination or failure to comply with the principle of equal opportunities.
Väide, et komisjon ei oleks tohtinud ameti poolt tehtud muudatusi lubada
The criteria and conditions laid down in notice of competition COM/A/2/02 applied equally to all candidates who were in the same position, regardless of whether they were male or female.
2.1 Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjon ei oleks tohtinud ameti poolt tehtud muudatusi lubada. Tema väitel olid peamised 1997. aasta märtsis esitatud lõpparuande projekti järeldused ameti poolt
No observations were received from the complainant.
Märkuses nimetatakse „kaanel olevat EL logo”.
Alleged discrimination on the grounds of age in competition COM/A/2/02
1998. aasta aprillis esitatud lõplikust aruandest välja jäetud, neid oli seal eitatud või nende tähtsust vähendatud.
1.1 In the summer of 2002, the Commission published a competition for assistant administrators (COM/A/2/02) in the fields of agriculture, fisheries and environment.
2.2 Komisjoni seisukoht on see, et lõpparuande esitamine sellisel kujul, mida ta asjakohaseks peab, on töövõtja vastutus ja kohustus ning komisjon ei soovi sellesse protsessi sekkuda.
Candidates needed to have a university degree but no professional experience. However, the notice of competition contained the following provision (point A.II.2.b): “You will be allowed to sit the competition if you obtained the university degree required for admission a er 27 September 1997.”
Kuigi võib väita, et komisjon ei oleks tohtinud põhjendamatut ja õigustamatut teaduslikku järeldust vastu võ a, ei saa seda samastada haldusliku omavoliga.
The complainant, a Commission official, considered that this condition amounted to discrimination on the grounds of age.
Komisjoni väitel ei ilmnenud lepingu hoolikal läbivaatamisel seal sellist nõuet, millele kaebuse esitaja oli viidanud.
1.2 The Commission pointed out that candidates were also eligible if they had obtained a postgraduate qualification directly relevant to the areas of activity concerned a er 27 September 1999.
2.3 Ombudsman märgib, et komisjon ei vaidlustanud kaebuse esitaja väidet, mille kohaselt komisjoni poolt heakskiidetud lõpparuande projekti tehti olulisi muudatusi.
In the Commission’s view, the relevant competition and competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators that had been published with the said competition should be considered together.
2.4 Siiski leiab ombudsman, nagu ta oma otsuses kaebuse 1574/2002/GG kohta on juba väitnud, et komisjoni seisukoht, mille kohaselt lõpparuande esitamine sellisel kujul, mida ta asjakohaseks peab, on töövõtja vastutus ja kohustus, paistab olevat põhjendatud.
As the competition concerned was running in parallel with competition COM/A/1/02, anyone who had obtained his fi first degree more than fi ve years previously could apply for this competition.
2.5 Antud asjaoludel ilmneb, et selle väite osas ei esinenud komisjoni tegevuses halduslikku omavoli.
Commission, the requirement of a recently obtained degree was a condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled, and in the case of recruitment in the basic career bracket, the Commission required recent or “fresh” knowledge.
Komisjoni väidetav hooletus, mis seisneb ameti poolt tehtud muudatuste põhjuste või selgituste küsimata jätmises
The Commission also noted that the “recent degree” clause that applied to the competition concerned was broader than in previous competitions, in the sense that the degree that was required for admission to the competition had to be obtained less than
3.1 Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et komisjon oli hooletu, jä es küsimata ameti poolt tehtud muudatuste põhjused või selgitused.
ANINQUIRY fi ve years before the closing date for the submission of applications (rather than three years as
UURIMISEPÕHJAL
DECISIONSFOLLOWING previously).
TEHTUDOTSUSED
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the relevant competition was for career bracket A8 (assistant administrator), which is the basic A-grade career bracket and for which no previous professional experience is required.
3.2 Komisjon osundab sellele, et peamine parameeter, mida nii projekti kui ka lõpliku aruande vastuvõtmise või tagasilükkamise otsustamisel kasutatakse, on lepingutingimuste täitmine.
He further notes that the institutions and bodies of the EU organise their competitions in order to recruit officials based on the needs of their services, and that they have considerable discretion in doing so, provided that they comply with the Staff Regulations and other legal rules that are binding upon them.
Kõnealuse lepingu puhul olid tingimused täidetud. Kui komisjon tuvastab lepingu alusel tehtud töö tulemuste teaduslikus analüüsis puudujääke, teeb ta töövõtjale asjakohase märkuse ning nõuab parandusi.
The Ombudsman takes the view that by requiring candidates for A8 posts to have a university degree that has been obtained in the recent past, the Commission has acted within the limits of its legal authority.75 The same conclusion holds true for the Commission’s decision to set the period during which the degree had to be obtained at fi ve years before the closing date.
Antud lepingu puhul ei olnud see tõsi ei aruande projekti ega lõpliku aruande puhul. Kui töövõtja soovis teaduslikust analüüsist tulenevaid järeldusi lõplikus aruandes muuta, siis peaks tal olema ja oligi õigus seda teha.
Candidates who had obtained their university degree on or before 27 September 1997 but who had three years’ professional experience corresponding to the duties concerned were thus able to take part in competition COM/A/1/02.
Ombudsman leiab, et hea haldustava nõuab järjepidevat tegutsemist.81
1.5 The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was no maladministration on the part of the Commission in so far as the complainant’s original allegation is concerned.
Asjaomase lepingu sä eid silmas pidades tähendas see seda, et amet ei pidanud peale lõpliku kuluaruande esitamist selle uuringu osas rohkem tööd tegema.
Alleged discrimination between women and men in competition COM/A/2/02
See on seda tähelepanuväärsem, et lõpliku aruande esitamise (pikendatud) tähtaeg (1997. aasta veebruari lõpp) oli ammu möödas.
2.1 In his observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant took the view that the relevant clause in the notice of competition COM/A/2/02 also constituted discrimination on the
See tähendab seda, et komisjon tutvub aruandega, veendumaks, kas seal esineb selliseid puudujääke, ega piirdu üksnes talle esitatud aruandele templi löömisega.
Cf. the Ombudsman’s decision of 21 July 2000 on complaints 428/98/JMA and 464/98/JMA and his decision of 28 March 2003 on complaint 1536/2002/OV (which also concerned competition COM/A/2/02).
Vt Euroopa hea haldustava eeskirja artikli 10 lõige 1 (võimalik vaadata ombudsmani kodulehel: h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Decisions following an inquiry grounds of sex.76In his view, a woman who had obtained her degree six or more years before the relevant date, and who had then had children, was punished by being excluded from the competition.
Uurimise põhjal tehtud otsused vastuoluline; b) Iiri ministeerium soovis lõplikku aruannet enne selle avaldamist redigeerida; c) lõplik aruanne esitati rohkem kui aasta pärast seda, kui komisjon oli lõpparuande projekti heaks kiitnud ja d) võrreldes lõpparuande projektiga sisaldas see lõplik aruanne olulisi muudatusi.
The complainant pointed out that in a previous competition (competition COM/LA/9/99), the Commission had provided for exceptions in such cases.
Neid asjaolusid silmas pidades oleks võinud eeldada, et komisjon tutvub lõpliku aruandega väga hoolikalt.
2.2 The Commission admi ed that the notice of competition COM/LA/9/99 had provided that derogations from the cut-offdate for obtaining the relevant degree were possible, notably for candidates who had had an uninterrupted break from paid employment for at least one year in order to look a er a dependent child, and that the notice of competition COM/A/2/02 did not contain any such clause.
3.8 Antud asjaolust lähtuvalt on ombudsmani seisukoht selline, et komisjon oleks pidanud hoolikalt tutvuma oluliselt muudetud lõpliku aruandega, mis esitati talle 1998. aasta aprillis, rohkem, kui aasta pärast lõpparuande projekti heakskiitmist.
It took the view, however, that differences between notices of competition did not constitute discrimination or failure to comply with the principle of equal opportunities.
Jä es selle tegemata, ei järginud komisjon järjepideva tegutsemise nõuet.
The Commission further pointed out that the eligibility criteria had also changed and that the competition referred to by the complainant had for example still included an age limit (45 years) whilst the notice of the relevant competition did not contain any such clause.
See kujutas endast haldusliku omavoli juhtumit ning ombudsman teeb alljärgneva kriitilise märkuse.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Kaebuse esitaja nõuded
2.3 It is good administrative practice to ensure equal opportunities between women and men when deciding on the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates at competitions organised by Community institutions or bodies.
4.1 Oma kaebuses avaldas kaebuse esitaja lootust, et tema ees vabandatakse toimunu pärast ning kinnitatakse, et tehakse jõupingutusi sarnaste olukordade vältimiseks tulevikus.
Given that it is still mostly women that look a er dependent children, these conditions thus have to take sufficient account of the special problems that may arise from this fact. The Ombudsman notes that there was a significant difference in this respect between the competition which is the subject of the present complaint and a previous competition organised by the Commission.
Oma 11. augusti 2003. aasta kirja lõpus ütles kaebuse esitaja, et oli algselt nõudnud vabandamist ning kinnitust, et sarnaseid olukordi edaspidi ei esine, kuid nüüd soovis ta algse lõpparuande projekti avaldamist koos sellise teguviisi ametliku põhjendusega.
The notice of competition COM/LA/9/99 provided that in such cases the cut-off date (that is to say the date a er which the required university degree had to be obtained) could be extended by the time spent out of employment for a period of up to two years per child, with a maximum of fi ve years in all.
Igal juhul nõudis ta enda süütuks tunnistamist selles osas, et keeldus osalemast teaduslikus tsenseerimises, ning oma maine taastamist.
2.4 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why no account was taken of these specific problems in the competition concerned although the Commission must have been aware of them, as the notice of competition COM/LA/9/99 shows.
4.2 Oma 17. augusti 2003. aasta kirjas selgitas kaebuse esitaja, et on järele mõelnud ja soovib siiski kõigepealt ombudsmani uurimise tulemused ära oodata.
This is an instance of maladministration, and a critical remark will be made in this respect.
4.3 Antud asjaoludel leiab ombudsman, et kaebuse esitaja algselt esitatud nõudeid ei ole vaja käsitleda.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Ombudsmani poolt kaebuse alusel läbiviidud uurimise põhjal on vaja esitada järgmine kriitiline märkus:
It is good administrative practice to ensure equal opportunities between women and men when deciding on the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates at competitions organised by Community institutions or bodies.
Ombudsmani seisukoht on see, et komisjon oleks pidanud hoolikalt tutvuma oluliselt muudetud lõpliku aruandega, mis esitati talle 1998. aasta aprillis, rohkem kui aasta pärast lõpparuande projekti heakskiitmist.
In the present case, the Ombudsman takes the view that by omi ing to take sufficient account of the situation of women bringing up children when dra ing the notice of competition COM/A/1/02, the Commission has failed to ensure equal opportunities between women and men.
Võ es arvesse asjaolu, et juhtumi need tahud käsitlevad konkreetsete minevikus toimunud sündmustega seotud menetlusi, ei ole asjakohane püüda antud küsimuses kokkuleppele jõuda.
This is an instance of maladministration.
Seega lõpetab ombudsman asja menetlemise.
It should be noted that no such allegation had been made in complaints 428/98/JMA, 464/98/JMA or 1536/2002/OV (see preceding footnote).
St veebileht, millel vastatakse korduvalt esitatud küsimustele.
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Kaebuse esitaja arvates ei olnud pakkumistingimused piisavalt selged, peamiselt koos pakkumisega esitatavate täiendavate dokumentide osas, ning komisjoni KEK veebilehel82 toodud vastused tekitasid veelgi enam segadust.
In view of the fact that it is likely that most competitions will in the future be organised not by the Commission but by the European Personnel Selection Office, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be appropriate to make a dra recommendation, either. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Seepärast saatis kaebuse esitaja selgituste palumiseks komisjoni määratud kontaktisikule mitu e-kirja, kuid rahuldavaid vastuseid ta e-kirjadele ei saanud.
INCONSISTENT APPROACH TO STUDY ON SEALS BY COMMISSION
Nendest e-kirjadest ilmneb, et väidetav segadus pakkumistingimustes ja KEK veebilehel on peamiselt seotud sellega, millisel määral peavad täiendavad dokumendid olema tõestatud.
Decision on complaint 754/2003/GG against the European Commission
Sisuliselt väidab kaebuse esitaja, et: i) komisjoni KEK veebileht sisaldas ebaselget ja võimalik, et pakkumistingimustega vastuolus olevat teavet ning ii) komisjon jä is vastamata tema pakkumismenetlust käsitlevatele küsimustele.
THE COMPLAINT
UURIMINE
The facts underlying these previous complaints were as follows:
Oma arvamuses esitas komisjon järgmised märkused:
The complainant used to work for the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (the “Board”), an Irish authority.
Võiksime tõenäoliselt kasutatavate tõlkij ate kohta saata ka selgitavat teavet, kuid kas ka see peab olema tõendatud?”
The Board had entered into a contract (reference number PEM/93/06) with the European Commission’s Directorate-General (“DG”) XIV (Fisheries) by which it had undertaken to carry out research into “The Physical Interaction between Grey Seals and Fishing Gear”.
Samuti oli kaebuse esitaja küsinud, milline oleks õiguslik suhe tema alltöövõtjate ja komisjoni vahel.
The complainant was the responsible scientist on this research contract.
Kaebuse esitaja väitel ei olnud eespool esitatud küsimused olemasoleva teabe põhjal selged.
According to Article 3 (“Reports and documents”) of the contract, the tasks carried out by the contractor in performance of this contract were to be the subject of reports drawn up in accordance with Annex III.
Pakkumistingimused, täpsemalt nende lõige 2.3.3.2, olid võimalike nõuete osas ühemõ elised.
The la er detailed in particular how the final report had to be set out and specified that the dra(fi nal) report had to be submi ed to the Commission by a certain date.
Töötajate ega alltöövõtjate kohta ei nõutud tõestatud teavet.
Annex III further stipulated: “The Commission will then either notify its acceptance to the Contractor or will send him its comments.
Seda asjaolu kinnitati KEK veebilehel järgmistele küsimustele esitatud vastustes: ”Kas diplomite valguskoopiad peavad olema tõestatud?
The dra final report was accepted by the Commission in April 1997.
Lisaks sellele väideti lõikes 2.3.3.2, et ”igal juhul on ainuvastutus lepingu täitmise eest peatöövõtjal”
According to the complainant, some weeks later the Board had received instructions from its parent civil service authority, the Department of the Marine & Natural Resources, to carry out substantial changes to the dra. Since the complainant had been unwilling to do so, he had considered that his position had become untenable and had resigned from the Board. About a year later, the report was published.
Kaebuse esitaja oli teinud märkusi ka tõestatud koopiate nõude kohta üldiselt ja eriti teatavale korduvale küsimusele esitatud vastuse kohta, milles väideti, et: ”vastupidiselt muudele täiendavatele dokumentidele ei pea diplomite koopiad olema tõestatud.
According to the complainant, it had been very substantially altered.
Esitada tuleb üks originaalpakkumine, mis sisaldab originaaldokumente või tõestatud koopiaid.
The main findings of the dra final report had been either deleted, negated or diluted.
Kaks koopiat peaksid olema lihtsalt originaalpakkumise, sh selle lisade, valguskoopiad.
The complainant considered that these changes were not allowed under the contract.
Dokumendid peab tõestama asjakohane ametiisik, nt advokaat või notar.
He claimed that no explanation for what happened had yet been offered. ered.
Pakkujapoolset tõestamist ei aktsepteerita.”
On 8 May 2002, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman (complaint 836/2002/GG).
Pakkumistingimused olid üheselt mõistetavad.
In his decision of 27 May 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he was unable to deal with this complaint on the grounds that the complainant had not yet made the appropriate prior approaches to the Commission.
Lõikes 2.1.1 loetleti kuus põhjust, mille alusel võib pakkujaid osalemisest kõrvale jä a. KEK vastuses osutati selgelt sellele pakkumistingimuste lõikele, milles ühemõ eliselt loetleti need dokumendid, millest tuli esitada originaal või tõestatud koopia.
The complainant then wrote to the Director-General of DG Fisheries at the European Commission on 13 June 2002 asking for explanations. By the time he decided to renew his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2002, the complainant had received neither a reply nor an acknowledgement of receipt regarding this le er.
Lisaks sellele küsis kaebuse esitaja, kas notari juures vande all kinnitatud avaldus on piisav tõestamaks, et tema äriühing ei ole pankrotis ja et selle suhtes ei ole algatatud pankrotimenetlust, kuna Suurbritannias ei ole võimalik saada ”hea käitumise tunnistust”.
In his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion 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 appeared to be reasonable and that no maladministration could therefore be found with regard to this aspect of the complaint.
Üldise märkusena küsimustele vastamata jätmise väite kohta osundas komisjon ka sellele, et pakkujate ja tellijate vahelist ühenduse pidamist reguleerivat poliitikat on kirjeldatud pakkumistingimuste jaos 1.12.83Lisaks sellele olid kõigi kaebuse esitaja küsimuste vastused pakkumistingimustes ära toodud ja KEK veebilehel olid esitatud täiendavad üksikasjad ning kuna ükski teine pakkuja ei esitanud samu küsimusi kui kaebuse esitaja, ei astunud komisjon mingeid samme.
The Ombudsman did however make a critical remark in so far as the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s le er was concerned.
See lähenemisviis oli kooskõlas põhimõ ega, mille kohaselt kõigile pakkujatele võrdsete tingimuste tagamine on olulisem, kui komisjoni kõigile teabenõuetele vastamise poliitika.
The new complaint
Kaebuse esitaja seisukohad
In a le er submi ed in April 2003, the complainant asked the Ombudsman to reconsider his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG in so far as the main issue was concerned.
Oma seisukohtade esitamisel tõi kaebuse esitaja kokkuvõtvalt välja järgmised punktid:
The complainant’s le er was therefore treated as a new complaint.
Asjaolu, et pakkumistingimuste lõikes 2.3.3.2 ei nõuta töötajate ega alltöövõtjate kohta tõestatud teavet ei tähenda tingimata, et sellist teavet üldse ei nõuta, kui see nõue on esitatud mujal.
In this new complaint, the complainant submi ed that the final report was a censored version of the dra final report.
Teatava korduva küsimuse vastuses väideti, et ”vastupidiselt muudele täiendavatele dokumentidele ei pea diplomite koopiad olema tõestatud.
In order to support this view, the complainant noted in particular that the dra
Üks viis tõlgendada neid kõrvutatud väiteid, mille suhtes selgituse palumine on põhjendatud, on see, et diplomite puhul ei nõuta tõestatud koopiaid, vaid ainult originaale.
ANINQUIRY fi final report had concluded that 17 tons of fish damaged by seals had been sampled whereas the
UURIMISEPÕHJAL
DECISIONSFOLLOWING corresponding conclusion in the final report had merely stated that damage to fish could be ascribed to large predators such as seals or conger eels.
Lisaks sellele ei olnud pakkumistingimuste lõige 2.1.1 ühemõ eline, sest viimases lauses osutati eelmisele lausele, milles omakorda osutati ainult lõigule d: ”pakkuja peab hiljuti väljastatud tunnistuse näol esitama tõendeid ka selle kohta, et ta on need kohustused täitnud”.
According to the complainant, there had been no scientific evidence to suggest that any animal other than seals had caused this damage and the evidence that seals were the cause of the damage had been more than reasonable.
Ei olnud sugugi selge, et see alternatiivne tõestusvõimalus kehtis ka lõikude a, b ja e kohta ning vastust kaebuse esitaja küsimusele ei olnud lõike sõnastusest tingimata võimalik järeldada.
The complainant argued that the message of the dra final report would have been controversial, and that this was the reason why its conclusions had been changed in the final report.
Peale selle selgitas komisjon ühes järgnevas pakkumismenetluses, milliseid 2.1.1 lõike lõikusid kõnealune viimane lause hõlmas.
The complainant submi ed a substantial number of documents to support his case.
Lõpuks oli absurdne komisjoni põhjendus kaebuse esitaja küsimustele vastamata jätmise kohta, st asjaolu, et ükski teine pakkuja ei olnud sarnaseid küsimusi esitanud ja et see poliitika oli kooskõlas kõigile pakkujatele võrdsete tingimuste tagamise poliitikaga.
Some of these new documents had been obtained from the Commission following a request for access to copies of all correspondence that had been exchanged between the Commission and the Board in relation to the contract between April 1997 and the date of the Commission’s acceptance of the final report in 1998.
Avaldatud selgitused ei oleks ühelgi moel saanud kaebuse esitajale teiste pakkujatega võrreldes eeliseid anda.
For the first time, the complainant also provided copies of the dra final report and the final report themselves.
Täpsemad selgitused oleks olnud kõigile pakkujatele võrdselt kasulikud.
From these documents, the following facts emerge:
KEK veebilehe väidetav ebaselgus ja vastuolu pakkumistingimustega
In a le er to the Commission dated 2 June 1993 regarding the study to be carried out, the complainant noted: “Misinterpretation of these data by protectionist groups, based on their historical performance, is quite possible”.
1.1 Kaebus on seotud komisjoni avaldatud tõlketeenuseid puudutavate pakkumiste esitamise kutsega (AO2003). Kaebuse esitaja väidab, et kui lugeda KEK veebilehte koos pakkumistingimustega, ei olnud selge, kas alltöövõtjate kohta tuli esitada tõestatud teavet.
The Board’s programme for the study noted that it was hoped “that the causative agents of damaged fish in gillnets and tangle nets will be clearly established”.
Samuti jäi üldiselt ebaselgeks see, millised täiendavate dokumentide koopiad pidid olema tõestatud, eriti juhul, kui diplomite koopiad ei pidanud olema tõestatud.
On 28 March 1994, the European Parliament’s Commi ee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Development submi ed a report on the interactions between seals and fisheries (A3-0186/94).
1.2 Komisjon väidab, et pakkumistingimused olid tõestatud teabe ja koopiatega seotud nõuete osas üheselt mõistetavad.
The European Parliament adopted this resolution on 6 May 1994.77
Sellest tulenevalt ei pidanud diplomite koopiaid olema