natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, Article 6.3 provides that if he `considers that a friendly solution is not possible, or that the search for a friendly solution has been unsuccessful, he either closes the case with a reasoned decision that may include a critical remark or makes a report with draft recommendations'.
Međutim, u skladu sa stavkom 3. iste odredbe, ako on „sporazumno rješenje smatra nemogućim ili traženje sporazumnog rješenja neuspješnim, slučaj zaključuje ili donošenjem obrazložene odluke koja može sadržavati primjedbe ili piše izvješće koje sadrži nacrte preporuka".
11 With regard to the possibility of making a `critical remark' within the meaning of the last-mentioned provision, Article 7.1 of the implementing provisions provides that the Ombudsman is to make a critical remark if he considers inter alia `that it is no longer possible for the institution or body concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration' and that the instance `has no general implications'.
11 U pogledu mogućnosti davanja „primjedbi" u smislu zadnje navedene odredbe, članak 7. stavak 1. provedbenih odredbi propisuje da ombudsman daje primjedbu ako između ostalog smatra „da više nije moguće da dotična institucija ili tijelo ukloni slučajeve nepravilnosti u djelovanju uprave", te da navedeni slučaj „nema opće posljedice".
Facts
Činjenice iz kojih proizlazi spor
12 It is apparent from paragraphs 16 to 36 of the judgment appealed against that the facts underlying the dispute are essentially as set out below.
12 Iz točaka 16. do 36. pobijane presude proizlazi da su činjenice iz kojih proizlazi spor u biti kako je navedeno u nastavku.
13 Mr Lamberts took part in an internal competition organised by the Commission of the European Communities for the establishment as officials of members of the temporary staff in Grade A. He failed the oral test and attributes that failure to the fact that, during that test, he was under the influence of medication capable of causing fatigue and reducing his ability to concentrate.
13 F. Lamberts je sudjelovao u internom natječaju koji je organizirala Komisija Europskih zajednica za imenovanje dužnosnika članova privremenog osoblja u kategoriji A. Nije položio usmeni ispit i to pripisuje činjenici da je, za vrijeme tog ispita, bio pod utjecajem lijekova koji mogu uzrokovati umor i smanjenu sposobnost koncentracije.
He had been prescribed that treatment following an accident which had occurred some weeks prior to the oral test.
Ti su mu lijekovi bili prepisani nakon nesreće koja se dogodila nekoliko tjedana prije polaganja usmenog ispita.
He stressed that he had not requested a postponement of his oral test owing to a clause in the document inviting him to attend that test.
Naglasio je da nije zatražio odgodu usmenog ispita zbog klauzule u dokumentu kojim je bio pozvan da pristupi tom ispitu.
Under that clause `the organisation of the tests does not permit any change in the times communicated ...'.
Prema toj klauzuli „organizacija ispita ne dopušta izmjenu naznačenog rasporeda [...]".
14 After unsuccessfully seeking to have his case reexamined by the Commission's services he made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
14 Nakon što nije uspio u zahtjevu da službe Komisije preispitaju njegov slučaj, podnio je pritužbu ombudsmanu.
15 After examining that complaint, the Ombudsman on 21 October 1999 sent Mr Lamberts his decision on it.
15 Nakon što je ispitao pritužbu, ombudsman je 21. listopada 1999. poslao F. Lambertsu svoju odluku o toj pritužbi.
In that decision the Ombudsman stated that, according to his inquiry, the Commission was in practice prepared to take into account exceptional circumstances which prevented a candidate from attending on the day indicated in the invitation to attend an oral test.
U toj odluci ombudsman navodi da je, prema njegovoj istrazi, Komisija u praksi bila spremna uzeti u obzir izvanredne okolnosti koje su spriječile kandidata da pristupi ispitu na dan naveden u pozivu na usmeni ispit.
He added that, for the sake of sound administration, the Commission should include a passage in the letter of invitation to the oral test informing candidates of that possibility.
Dodao je da bi u interesu dobre uprave Komisija trebala uključiti takvu klauzulu u pozivu na usmeni ispit kako bi kandidati bili obaviješteni o toj mogućnosti.
16 However, as regards the Commission's refusal in this case to allow the complainant to retake the oral test, the Ombudsman noted in particular, in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of his decision, that a `competition has to be conducted in accordance with the principle of equal treatment of candidates.
16 Međutim, što se tiče činjenice da je, u ovom slučaju, institucija odbila podnositelju pritužbe omogućiti ponovno polaganje usmenog ispita, ombudsman je posebno istaknuo u točkama 2.2. i 2.3. svoje odluke da se „natječaj mora [...] provoditi u skladu s načelom jednakog postupanja prema kandidatima.
Violation of this principle may lead to the annulment of the competition.
Nepoštovanje ovog načela može dovesti do poništenja natječaja.
That may entail considerable financial and administrative costs for the administration.
To može prouzročiti znatne financijske i upravne troškove za administraciju.
It appears from the Commission's opinion that the Commission considered that it was unable to offer a candidate the possibility of a second oral exam.
Iz mišljenja Komisije proizlazi da Komisija smatra da nije mogla ponuditi kandidatu mogućnost drugog usmenog ispita.
The Ombudsman notes that there are no elements at hand which indicate that the decision of the Commission to refuse to let the candidate retake the oral exam has been taken in violation of any rule or principle binding upon the Commission'.
Ombudsman primjećuje da ne postoje elementi koji pokazuju da je odluka Komisije da kandidatu ne dopusti ponovno polaganje usmenog ispita donesena u suprotnosti s bilo kojim pravilom ili načelom koji obvezuju Komisiju."
The Ombudsman therefore considered that in the present case `there was no instance of maladministration'.
Ombudsman je stoga smatrao da u ovom slučaju „nije bilo nepravilnosti u djelovanju".
17 In conclusion, the Ombudsman made a critical remark regarding the Commission's general administrative practice.
17 Zaključno, ombudsman je dao kritičku primjedbu u pogledu upravne prakse Komisije općenito.
In that remark he repeated his view that, as a matter of good administrative conduct, the Commission should as a general rule in future include a clause in the invitations to the oral test informing candidates that the date indicated may be changed in exceptional circumstances.
U toj je primjedbi ponovio svoju ocjenu da, u interesu dobre uprave, Komisija treba u pravilu u budućnosti u pozivima na usmeni ispit uključiti klauzulu u kojoj obavješćuje kandidate da se navedeni datum može mijenjati u iznimnim okolnostima.
As regards Mr Lamberts's complaint, the Ombudsman concluded that `[g]iven that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter'.
U pogledu pritužbe F. Lambertsa, ombudsman je zaključio da „[b]udući da se ovaj aspekt predmeta tiče postupaka koji se odnose na određene događaje iz prošlosti, nije primjereno tražiti sporazumno rješavanje predmeta".
The Ombudsman therefore decided to close the case.
Ombudsman je stoga odlučio zaključiti predmet.
Procedure before the Court of First Instance and judgment appealed against
Postupak pred Prvostupanjskim sudom i pobijana presuda
18 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 9 August 2000 Mr Lamberts brought an action against the Ombudsman and the Parliament for compensation for material and non-material damage allegedly suffered as a result of the manner in which the Ombudsman had dealt with his complaint.
18 Zahtjevom podnesenim tajništvu Prvostupanjskog suda 9. kolovoza 2000. F. Lamberts podnio je protiv ombudsmana i Parlamenta tužbu za naknadu materijalne i nematerijalne štete koju je navodno pretrpio zbog načina na koji je ombudsman postupio u rješavanju njegove pritužbe.
The Ombudsman and the Parliament sought an order that the action be declared inadmissible.
Ombudsman i Parlament zatražili su da se tužba proglasi nedopuštenom.
19 By order of 22 February 2001 the Court of First Instance dismissed the application as inadmissible in so far as it had been brought against the Parliament (Case T-209/00 Lamberts v Ombudsman and Parliament [2002] ECR II-765).
19 Rješenjem od 22. veljače 2001. Prvostupanjski sud odbio je tužbu kao nedopuštenu budući da je podnesena protiv Parlamenta (Lamberts/Ombudsman i Parlament, T-209/00, Zb., str. II-765.).
By order of the same date it ordered that the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Ombudsman be dealt with together with the merits.
Rješenjem od istog datuma naložio je da se prigovor nedopuštenosti koji je uložio ombudsman razmotri zajedno s meritumom.
The Ombudsman sought an order, in the alternative, that the action be dismissed as unfounded.
Ombudsman je, podredno, podnio zahtjev da se tužba odbaci kao neosnovana.
20 In the judgment appealed against, the Court of First Instance first examined the admissibility of the action against the Ombudsman.
20 U pobijanoj presudi Prvostupanjski sud prvo je ispitao dopuštenost tužbe protiv ombudsmana.
In paragraphs 48 to 52 of that judgment, it referred to the Court's case-law according to which under Articles 235 EC and 288 EC an action may be brought against any Community body in order to establish the non-contractual liability of the Community and to obtain reparation for damage caused by that body in the exercise of its competences.
U točkama 48. do 52. te presude upućuje na sudsku praksu Suda prema kojoj se na temelju članaka 235. UEZ-a i 288. UEZ-a tužba može podnijeti protiv bilo kojeg tijela Zajednice radi utvrđivanja izvanugovorne odgovornosti Zajednice i naknade štete koju je to tijelo prouzročilo obavljanjem svojih dužnosti.
It concluded that it had jurisdiction in the case of an action for damages against the Ombudsman.
Zaključio je da je nadležan u slučaju tužbe za naknadu štete protiv ombudsmana.
21 The Court of First Instance went on to hold, in paragraph 57 of the judgment appealed against, that:
21 Prvostupanjski sud zatim u točki 57. pobijane presude smatra:
`Decision 94/262 ... assigns to the Ombudsman not only the task of identifying and seeking to eliminate instances of maladministration on behalf of the public interest but also that of seeking, so far as is possible, a settlement that is in accordance with the specific interest of the citizen concerned.
„Odlukom 94/262 [...] ombudsmanu se dodjeljuje ne samo zadaća da u ime općeg interesa utvrdi i otkloni slučajeve nepravilnosti u postupanju, već i da, koliko je to moguće, pronađe rješenje koje je u skladu sa specifičnim interesom predmetnog građanina.
The Ombudsman has indeed, as he himself stressed, very wide discretion as regards the merits of complaints and the way in which he deals with them, and in so doing he is under no obligation as to the result to be achieved.
Ombudsman doista ima, kako je i sam naglasio, vrlo široku marginu prosudbe u pogledu osnovanosti pritužbi i načina na koji ih rješava i u tom okviru nema obavezu u pogledu rezultata.
However, even if review by the Community judicature must consequently be limited, it is possible that in very exceptional circumstances a citizen may be able to demonstrate that the Ombudsman has made a manifest error in the performance of his duties likely to cause damage to the citizen concerned.'
Međutim, čak i ako sudski nadzor Zajednice zbog toga mora biti ograničen, nije isključeno da u zaista iznimnim okolnostima građanin može dokazati da je ombudsman počinio očit propust u obavljanju svojih dužnosti koji može biti takav da prouzroči štetu predmetnom građaninu."
22 In paragraphs 58 and 59 of that judgment the Court of First Instance stated:
22 U točkama 58. i 59. te presude Prvostupanjski sud navodi:
`58 ... the Ombudsman's argument that any measures he may take following his inquiries are not binding cannot be accepted either.
„58 [...] ni argument ombudsmana da mjere koje on poduzima tijekom svoje istrage nisu obvezujuće ne može se prihvatiti.
The action for damages provided for under the Treaty was introduced as an autonomous form of action, with a particular purpose to fulfil within the system of legal remedies and subject to conditions of use dictated by its specific purpose ... .
Tužba za naknadu štete predviđena Ugovorom uvedena je kao autonomno pravno sredstvo koje ima posebnu funkciju u sustavu pravnih sredstava i ovisi o pretpostavkama za primjenu koje su određene uzimajući u obzir njegovu posebnu svrhu [...].
Although actions for annulment and for failure to act seek a declaration that a legally binding measure is unlawful or that such a measure has not been taken, an action for damages seeks compensation for damage resulting from a measure, whether legally binding or not, or from conduct, attributable to a Community institution or body ... .
Iako tužbe za poništenje ili zbog propusta imaju za cilj sankcioniranje nezakonitosti obvezujućeg pravnog akta ili nedostatka takvog akta, predmet je tužbe za utvrđivanje odgovornosti zahtjev za naknadu štete koja proizlazi iz akta, bio on pravno obvezujući ili ne, ili nezakonitog ponašanja pripisivog instituciji ili tijelu Zajednice [...].
59 In the present case, [Mr Lamberts] accuses the Ombudsman of wrongful conduct in dealing with his complaint.
59 U ovom slučaju F. Lamberts optužuje ombudsmana za nepravilno postupanje u rješavanju njegove pritužbe.
It is possible that such conduct may prejudice the entitlement which citizens enjoy under the Treaty and Decision 94/262 to have the Ombudsman seek a non-judicial settlement of maladministration which affects them, and that it could cause them to sustain damage.'
Ne može se isključiti da takvo postupanje može dovesti u pitanje pravo koje građani imaju u okviru Ugovora i Odluke 94/262 da ombudsman zatraži izvansudsko rješavanje nepravilnosti koja utječe na njih i koja bi im mogla nanijeti štetu."
23 The Court of First Instance dismissed the action as unfounded since Mr Lamberts had not demonstrated that the Ombudsman had committed any breach of his administrative duties in dealing with his complaint.
23 Prvostupanjski sud odbio je tužbu kao neosnovanu jer F. Lamberts nije dokazao da je ombudsman u rješavanju njegove pritužbe nepravilno postupio.
24 As regards the relevant pleas in the present appeal the following matters emerge from the judgment appealed against.
24 U pogledu relevantnih žalbenih razloga u ovom žalbenom postupku, iz pobijane presude proizlazi sljedeće.
25 First, Mr Lamberts criticised the Ombudsman for not drawing his attention to the possibility of bringing an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the Commission's decision.
25 Prvo, F. Lamberts prigovara ombudsmanu što ga nije upozorio na mogućnost podnošenja tužbe pred Prvostupanjskim sudom za poništenje odluke Komisije.
However, the Court of First Instance has held that a member of staff of the Communities is deemed to be aware of the procedure for bringing an action before the Court of First Instance.
Međutim, Prvostupanjski sud smatra da član osoblja Zajednica mora imati saznanja o postupku podnošenja tužbe pred Prvostupanjskim sudom.
The Ombudsman may advise the individual on this point but is not compelled to do so by any provision of Community law.
Ombudsman može savjetovati osobu po tom pitanju, ali ga nijedna odredba prava Zajednice na to ne obvezuje.
26 Secondly, Mr Lamberts complained that the Ombudsman failed to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity in dealing with his complaint, in that the Ombudsman took the Commission's opinion into account although that opinion, drafted in English, the language in which Mr Lamberts had made the complaint, had been submitted after the time-limit set by the Ombudsman.
26 Drugo, F. Lamberts žalio se da ombudsman svojim postupanjem u rješavanju njegove pritužbe nije dokazao nepristranost i objektivnost budući da je uzeo u obzir mišljenje Komisije, iako je to mišljenje, sastavljeno na engleskom jeziku, jeziku na kojem je F. Lamberts podnio pritužbu, dostavljeno nakon isteka roka koji je odredio ombudsman.
He also pointed out that that version of the opinion did not correspond to the French version originally sent.
On je također istaknuo da ta verzija mišljenja ne odgovara izvorno poslanoj verziji na francuskom.
In that connection the Court of First Instance noted that the time-limit set by the Ombudsman for the institution to submit its opinion is not absolute and that the language versions did not differ with regard to the relevant factors in the Ombudsman's consideration of the complaint brought before him.
S tim u vezi Prvostupanjski sud istaknuo je da rok koji je ombudsman odredio instituciji za dostavu mišljenja nije apsolutan i da se jezične verzije ne razlikuju s obzirom na relevantne elemente pritužbe koju preispituje ombudsman kojem je upućena.
27 Thirdly, Mr Lamberts maintained that the Ombudsman was under an obligation to use his best endeavours in order to arrange a friendly settlement acceptable to the citizen.
27 Treće, F. Lamberts smatra da je ombudsman bio obvezan uložiti najveće napore kako bi utvrdio sporazumno rješenje prihvatljivo građaninu.
The Court of First Instance pointed out that the Ombudsman enjoys very wide discretion in that regard.
Prvostupanjski sud istaknuo je da ombudsman ima vrlo široku marginu prosudbe u tom pogledu.
Consequently, non-contractual liability can be incurred by the Ombudsman only where he has committed a flagrant and manifest breach of his obligations in that connection.
Slijedom toga, izvanugovorna odgovornost ombudsmana može nastati samo zbog postojanja njegovog flagrantnog i očitog nepoštovanja obveza u tom smislu.
He cannot, in principle, merely forward the opinions of the institution to the citizen concerned.
On, u načelu, ne može samo proslijediti mišljenje institucije predmetnom građaninu.
In the present case the Ombudsman examined the merits of the point of view defended by the Commission and was able, without being guilty of wrongful conduct, to conclude in his decision that there was no prospect of a friendly settlement acceptable to Mr Lamberts.
U ovom slučaju, ombudsman je ispitao osnovanost stajališta koje brani Komisija i mogao je, a da time ne pogriješi, u svojoj odluci zaključiti da ne postoji mogućnost sporazumnog rješenja prihvatljivog za F. Lambertsa.
Forms of order sought by the parties before the Court
Žalbeni zahtjevi stranaka pred Sudom
28 In his appeal the Ombudsman claims that the Court should:
28 U svojoj žalbi ombudsman od Suda zahtijeva da:
set aside the judgment appealed against inasmuch as it declares the action for damages admissible;
poništi pobijanu presudu u dijelu u kojem tužbu za naknadu štete proglašava dopuštenom;
declare that action inadmissible.
proglasi dotičnu tužbu nedopuštenom.
29 Mr Lamberts lodged a reply with the Court Registry.
29 F. Lamberts je Tajništvu suda podnio odgovor na žalbu.
He contends that the Court should: -
On zahtijeva od Suda da:
dismiss the appeal;
odbije žalbu;
set aside the judgment appealed against with regard to the substance of the claim brought at first instance and accordingly: -
poništi pobijanu presudu u odnosu na meritum zahtjeva podnesenog u prvom stupnju i u skladu s tim:
principally:
prvenstveno:
order the Ombudsman to pay him an amount of EUR 2 468 787 by way of damages in respect of material and financial damage and an amount of EUR 124 000 by way of damages in respect of non-material damage, together with interest to be determined by the Court until full payment, -
naloži ombudsmanu da mu isplati iznos od 2 468 787 eura kao odštetu za materijalnu i financijsku štetu i iznos od 124 000 eura kao odštetu za nematerijalnu štetu, zajedno s kamatama koje će odrediti Sud do potpune isplate,
order the Ombudsman to pay the costs of the proceedings, -
naloži ombudsmanu snošenje troškova postupka,
in the alternative: -
podredno,
order the Ombudsman to pay the costs of the proceedings.
naloži ombudsmanu snošenje troškova postupka,
30 The Parliament lodged a statement in intervention in support of the Ombudsman.
30 Parlament je uložio intervencijski podnesak u prilog ombudsmanu.
Main appeal
Žalba
31 Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that an appeal may be brought before the Court, inter alia, against decisions of the Court of First Instance disposing of a procedural issue concerning a plea of lack of competence or inadmissibility and that such an appeal may be brought by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions.
31 Članak 56. Statuta Suda UEZ-a propisuje da se Sudu, između ostalog, može podnijeti žalba protiv odluka Prvostupanjskog suda o postupovnim pitanjima glede prigovora nenadležnosti ili nedopuštenosti te da takvu žalbu može podnijeti bilo koja stranka koja u cijelosti ili djelomično nije uspjela sa svojim zahtjevom.
32 In the judgment appealed against the Court of First Instance first rejected the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Ombudsman against the action brought by Mr Lamberts and went on to dismiss the latter's action as unfounded.
32 U pobijanoj presudi Prvostupanjski sud prvo je odbacio prigovor nedopuštenosti koji je ombudsman podnio protiv tužbe koju je podnio F. Lamberts, a zatim je tužbu potonjeg odbacio kao neosnovanu.
33 Since the Ombudsman was unsuccessful in part in his submissions his appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance to the extent to which it rejected his plea of inadmissibility is therefore admissible (see, to that effect, Case C-73/97 P France v Comafrica and Others [1999] ECR I-185 and Case C-23/00 P Council v Boehringer [2002] ECR I-1873, paragraph 50).
33 Budući da ombudsman djelomično nije uspio u svojim zahtjevima, njegova žalba protiv presude Prvostupanjskog suda stoga je dopuštena u mjeri u kojoj je taj sud odbacio njegov prigovor nedopuštenosti (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presudu od 21. siječnja 1999., Francuska/Comafrica i dr., C-73/97 P, Zb., str. I-185. i presudu od 26. veljače 2002., Vijeće/Boehringer, C-23/00 P, Zb., str. I-1873., t. 50.).
34 Next, the Ombudsman does not call in question the finding by the Court of First Instance that it has jurisdiction under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to hear actions for damages brought against him qua Community body.
34 Zatim valja napomenuti da ombudsman ne dovodi u pitanje utvrđenje Prvostupanjskog suda da je na temelju članka 235. UEZ-a i članka 288. drugog podstavka UEZ-a taj sud nadležan za odlučivanje o tužbama za naknadu štete podignutima protiv njega kao tijela Zajednice.
35 In fact the Ombudsman acknowledges that in principle a citizen may bring an action for damages in respect of the damage which the Ombudsman has caused him by any misconduct, that is to say actions distinct from the investigative procedures, which was committed in breach of the duties imposed on the Ombudsman by the Treaty and by the rules governing his status and infringed the individual rights of the citizen, such as the right to confidential treatment of certain information.
35 Ombudsman u biti priznaje da u načelu tužbu za naknadu štete građanin može podnijeti u odnosu na štetu koju mu je ombudsman uzrokovao propustom u radu, odnosno postupanjima različitim od istražnih postupaka, koje je počinio u suprotnosti s dužnostima dodijeljenima ombudsmanu na temelju Ugovora i pravilima koja uređuju njegov status i time povrijedio određena prava građana, kao što je pravo na povjerljivo postupanje s određenim informacijama.
36 Conversely, he considers it to be in breach of Community law for an action for damages to be brought against him in circumstances such as those in the present case, where the action seeks a review of the legality of the inquiry conducted by him and of his decision to close the procedure.
36 Suprotno tome, on smatra da je podnošenje tužbe za naknadu štete protiv njega u okolnostima poput onih u predmetnom slučaju, u kojem se u tužbi traži preispitivanje zakonitosti istrage koju je vodio i njegove odluke o zaključenju postupka, u suprotnosti s pravom Zajednice.