natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
`1. The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role. 
„1. Europski parlament imenuje Europskog ombudsmana koji je ovlašten primati pritužbe od svakog građanina Unije ili svake fizičke ili pravne osobe s boravištem odnosno registriranim sjedištem u jednoj državi članici, a u vezi s nepravilnostima u djelovanju institucija ili tijela Zajednice, s iznimkom Suda i Prvostupanjskog suda u izvršavanju njihovih pravosudnih ovlasti.
In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him direct or through a Member of the European Parliament, except where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings. 
U skladu sa svojim dužnostima Europski ombudsman, po službenoj dužnosti ili na temelju pritužaba koje su mu podnesene neposredno ili preko člana Europskog parlamenta, provodi istrage za koje ustanovi da su osnovane, osim kad navodne činjenice jesu predmetom pravnog postupka ili su to bile.
Where the Ombudsman establishes an instance of maladministration, he shall refer the matter to the institution concerned, which shall have a period of three months in which to inform him of its views. 
Ako Europski ombudsman utvrdi nepravilnosti u djelovanju, upućuje predmet instituciji na koju se istraga odnosi, koja ga u roku od tri mjeseca obavješćuje o svojim stavovima.
The Ombudsman shall then forward a report to the European Parliament and the institution concerned. 
Tada Europski ombudsman prosljeđuje izvješće Europskom parlamentu i instituciji na koju se istraga odnosi.
The person lodging the complaint shall be informed of the outcome of such inquiries. 
Osobu koja je podnijela pritužbu upoznaje se s ishodom takvih istraga.
The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the outcome of his inquiries. 
Europski ombudsman podnosi Europskom parlamentu godišnje izvješće o ishodu svojih istraga.
2. ... The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of the European Parliament if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he is guilty of serious misconduct. 
2. [...] Ako Europski ombudsman više ne ispunjava uvjete potrebne za obavljanje svojih dužnosti ili počini teži propust u radu, Sud ga može, na zahtjev Europskog parlamenta, razriješiti dužnosti.
3. The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. 
3. Europski ombudsman je potpuno neovisan u obavljanju svojih dužnosti.
In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any body. ...' 
U obavljanju tih dužnosti on ne smije tražiti ni primati naputke ni od kojeg tijela. [...]"
3 On 9 March 1994, the European Parliament adopted Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15). 
3 Europski parlament je 9. ožujka 1994. donio Odluku 94/262/EZUČ, EZ, Euratom o propisima i općim uvjetima koji uređuju obnašanje dužnosti Europskog ombudsmana (SL L 113, str. 15.) ) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 1., svezak 2., str. 49.-52.).
Pursuant to Article 14 of that decision, the Ombudsman adopted implementing provisions on 16 October 1997, which came into effect on 1 January 1998 (`the implementing provisions'). 
Europski ombudsman je na temelju članka 14. te odluke 16. listopada 1997. donio provedbene odredbe koje su stupile na snagu 1. siječnja 1998. (u daljnjem tekstu: provedbene odredbe).
The procedure for examining a complaint to the Ombudsman is thus laid down by Article 195(1) EC, Decision 94/262 and the implementing provisions. 
Postupak za ispitivanje pritužbe upućene ombudsmanu tako je uređen člankom 195. stavkom 1. UEZ-a, Odlukom 94/262 i provedbenim odredbama.
4 In essence, under Article 2(4), (7) and (8) of Decision 94/262 and Article 3 and Article 4.1 and 4.2 of the implementing provisions, when the Ombudsman receives a complaint of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or bodies he is to instigate an inquiry unless, for one of the reasons indicated in the abovementioned provisions, the complaint must be dismissed as inadmissible, in particular where the Ombudsman fails to find sufficient grounds for an inquiry. 
4 Iz članka 2. stavaka 4., 7. i 8. Odluke 94/262 te članka 3. i članka 4. stavaka 1. i 2. provedbenih odredbi u biti proizlazi da kada ombudsman primi pritužbu u pogledu nepravilnosti u djelovanju institucija ili tijela Zajednice, on provodi istragu, osim ako iz jednog od razloga u navedenim odredbama pritužbu treba odbaciti kao nedopuštenu, posebno ako ombudsman ne utvrdi razloge za opravdanost istrage.
5 Under Article 2(5) of Decision 94/262 `the Ombudsman may advise the person lodging the complaint to address it to another authority'. 
5 U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 5. Odluke 94/262, „Europski ombudsman može savjetovati podnositelju pritužbe da je uputi drugom tijelu".
In addition, Article 2(6) of Decision 94/262 provides that complaints submitted to the Ombudsman do not affect time-limits for appeals in administrative or judicial proceedings. 
Osim toga, na temelju članka 2. stavka 6. Odluke 94/262, pritužbe koje su upućene Europskom ombudsmanu ne utječu na rokove za žalbe u upravnim ili sudskim postupcima.
6 In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 195(1) EC and Article 3(1) of Decision 94/262, the Ombudsman, on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him, is to conduct the inquiries which he considers justified to clarify any suspected maladministration. 
6 U skladu s člankom 195. stavkom 1. drugim podstavkom UEZ-a i člankom 3. stavkom 1. Odluke 94/262, ombudsman na vlastitu inicijativu ili povodom pritužbi koje su mu podnesene obavlja sve istražne radnje koje smatra opravdanima za razjašnjavanje sumnji u nepravilnosti u djelovanju.
7 Under Article 3(1) of Decision 94/262 the Ombudsman is to inform of such action the Community institution or body which is the subject of the complaint or an inquiry and that institution or body may `submit any useful comment to him'. 
7 Prema članku 3. stavku 1. Odluke 94/262 ombudsman o obavljenim radnjama obavještava instituciju ili tijelo Zajednice koje je predmet pritužbi ili istrage i ta mu institucija ili tijelo može „uputiti korisne napomene".
8 After considering the opinion of that institution or body and any observations made by the complainant, the Ombudsman may decide either to close the case with a reasoned decision or to continue his inquiries. 
8 Nakon razmatranja mišljenja te institucije ili tijela i očitovanja podnositelja pritužbe ombudsman može odlučiti zaključiti predmet uz obrazloženu odluku ili nastaviti istragu.
Under Article 4.5 of the implementing provisions he is to inform the complainant and the institution or body concerned accordingly. 
U skladu s člankom 4. stavkom 5. provedbenih odredbi, o tome obavještava podnositelja pritužbe i predmetnu instituciju ili tijelo.
9 Where the Ombudsman finds an instance of maladministration in the activities of a Community institution or body he is, under Article 3(5) of Decision 94/262, to seek `[a]s far as possible ... a solution with the institution or body concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.' 
9 Ako ombudsman utvrdi nepravilnosti u djelovanju institucije ili tijela Zajednice, na temelju članka 3. stavka 5. Odluke 94/262, „[u] mjeri u kojoj je to moguće [...] traži rješenje zajedno s dotičnom institucijom i tijelom kako bi se otklonili slučajevi nepravilnosti u postupanju i kako bi se riješila pritužba."
10 In that regard, Article 6 of the implementing provisions, entitled `Friendly solutions', provides in paragraph 1 that `as far as possible [the Ombudsman] cooperates with the institution concerned in seeking a friendly solution to eliminate [the maladministration] and to satisfy the citizen'. 
10 U tom smislu, članak 6. provedbenih odredbi pod naslovom „Sporazumna rješenja" u stavku 1. predviđa da ombudsman „u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri surađuje s dotičnom institucijom u traženju sporazumnog rješenja kako bi uklonili nepravilnosti i time zadovoljili podnositelja pritužbe".
If the Ombudsman considers that such cooperation has been successful, he is to close the case with a reasoned decision and inform the citizen and the institution concerned of the decision accordingly. 
Ako ombudsman takvu suradnju smatra uspješnom, zatvara predmet donošenjem obrazložene odluke i o tome obavješćuje podnositelja pritužbe i dotičnu instituciju.
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.