natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance exceeded the limits to which judicial review of his activity is subject. 
U tom pogledu, Prvostupanjski sud prekoračio je granice koje vrijede za sudski nadzor kojem podliježe njegovo djelovanje.
37 In support of his appeal the Ombudsman raises a single plea based, on the one hand, on breach by the Court of First Instance of Community law, in particular, of Article 195 EC and Decision 94/262, and, on the other, on disregard or misinterpretation by the Court of First Instance of its own case-law and that of the Court. 
37 U prilog svojoj žalbi, ombudsman navodi jedan žalbeni razlog koji se temelji, s jedne strane, na tome da je Prvostupanjski sud povrijedio pravo Zajednice, posebno članak 195. UEZ-a i Odluku 94/262, a, s druge strane, na tome da je Prvostupanjski sud zanemario ili pogrešno tumačio vlastitu sudsku praksu i praksu Suda.
38 That plea is divided into three limbs. 
38 Taj je žalbeni razlog podijeljen na tri dijela.
First limb of the plea 
Prvi dio žalbenog razloga
Presentation and arguments 
Predstavljanje i argumentacija
39 In the first limb of his plea the Ombudsman, supported by the Parliament, criticises the Court of First Instance for carrying out a judicial review of the legality of the inquiry and of the decision to close the procedure, since, under the provisions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties and his liability, the power of review is conferred on the Parliament. 
39 U prvom dijelu žalbenog razloga ombudsman, uz potporu Parlamenta, prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu zbog obavljanja sudskog nadzora zakonitosti istrage i odluke o zaključenju postupka, budući da su, prema odredbama koje uređuju obnašanje dužnosti ombudsmana i njegove odgovornosti, ovlasti nadzora dodijeljene Parlamentu.
40 In that regard he relies on Article 195 EC and Article 3(7) and (8) of Decision 94/262 according to which the Ombudsman has to submit to the Parliament special reports and an annual report on his activities. 
40 U tom smislu, on se oslanja na članak 195. UEZ-a i članak 3. stavke 7. i 8. Odluke 94/262 prema kojima ombudsman mora Parlamentu podnijeti posebna izvješća i godišnje izvješće o svom djelovanju.
Essentially he points out that those reports are analysed by the Parliament and deliberated on. 
U suštini on ističe da Parlament analizira ta izvješća i raspravlja o njima.
He stresses that the inquiry conducted into the complaint by Mr Lamberts was mentioned in the 1999 annual report which was submitted to the Parliament in April 2000. 
Naglašava da je istraga provedena povodom pritužbe F. Lambertsa spomenuta u godišnjem izvješću za 1999. koje je podneseno Parlamentu u travnju 2000.
After analysing it, the Parliament drew up its own report which it adopted in July 2000. 
Nakon što ga je analizirao, Parlament je izradio svoje izvješće, koje je usvojeno u srpnju 2000.
By agreeing to examine on its merits a case in which Mr Lamberts contested the manner in which the Ombudsman had dealt with his complaint and the conclusions which he had arrived at, the Court of First Instance wrongly conducted a review of the legality of the inquiry conducted by the Ombudsman and of his conclusions, which duplicates the review incumbent on the Parliament under the EC Treaty and which has already been conducted. 
Time što je pristao na ispitivanje merituma predmeta u kojem F. Lamberts osporava način na koji je ombudsman postupao u rješavanju njegove pritužbe i zaključke do kojih je došao, Prvostupanjski sud pogrešno je proveo nadzor zakonitosti istrage koju je vodio ombudsman i njegovih zaključaka, čime udvostručuje nadzor za koji je zadužen Parlament na temelju Ugovora o UEZ-u i koji je već bio proveden.
41 Furthermore, the Ombudsman maintains that Article 195(2) EC and Article 8 of Decision 94/262 provide for a specific procedure for the case where the Ombudsman is guilty of serious misconduct or several cases of misconduct calling in question his capacity to perform his duties. 
41 Nadalje, ombudsman tvrdi da članak 195. stavak 2. UEZ-a i članak 8. Odluke 94/262 propisuju posebni postupak za slučaj ako ombudsman počini teži propust u radu ili više težih propusta koji dovode u pitanje njegovu sposobnost obavljanja dužnosti.
In that situation the Ombudsman may, at the request of the Parliament, be dismissed by the Court. 
U tim okolnostima Sud može, na zahtjev Parlamenta, ombudsmana smijeniti s dužnosti.
If Mr Lamberts was of the view that the Ombudsman had not dealt correctly with his complaint, he ought to have referred the matter to the Parliament and not to the Court of First Instance in the context of an action for damages. 
Ako je F. Lamberts smatrao da ombudsman nije pravilno postupio u rješavanju njegove pritužbe, trebao je predmet uputiti Parlamentu a ne Prvostupanjskom sudu u okviru tužbe za naknadu štete.
42 The Ombudsman and the Parliament add that the interpretations relied on by the Court of First Instance in declaring admissible an action for damages in respect of damage occasioned by the Ombudsman are likely to disturb the institutional equilibrium established around him and to call in question his independence under Article 195(3) EC. 
42 Ombudsman i Parlament dodaju da tumačenja na temelju kojih Prvostupanjski sud proglašava dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete koju je prouzročio ombudsman mogu poremetiti institucionalnu ravnotežu uspostavljenu oko njega i dovesti u pitanje njegovu neovisnost iz članka 195. stavka 3. UEZ-a.
43 The Court of First Instance did not err in law in considering that judicial review of the activities of the Ombudsman is not precluded by the review powers available to the Parliament in regard of him. 
43 Valja utvrditi da Prvostupanjski sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava time što je procijenio da sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana nije isključen ovlastima nadzora koje u odnosu na njega ima Parlament.
44 First, the obligation on the Ombudsman to report to the Parliament cannot be analysed as review by the Parliament of the proper performance by the Ombudsman of his duties in dealing with citizens' complaints. 
44 Prvo, obveza ombudsmana da podnosi izvješća Parlamentu ne može se analizirati kao nadzor Parlamenta nad pravilnim obnašanjem dužnosti ombudsmana u postupanju s pritužbama građana.
45 Secondly, the procedure for dismissal of the Ombudsman relates to an appraisal of his overall activity and not to review by the Parliament of the performance by the Ombudsman of his tasks when dealing with a citizen's complaint. 
45 Drugo, postupak za razrješenje ombudsmana odnosi se na ocjenu njegovog ukupnog djelovanja, a ne na nadzor Parlamenta nad obnašanjem dužnosti ombudsmana u postupanju s pritužbama građana.
46 In any event, the Parliament's powers with regard to the Ombudsman are not akin to judicial review. 
46 U svakom slučaju, ovlasti Parlamenta u odnosu na ombudsmana nikako nisu jednake ovlastima sudskog nadzora.
47 Consequently, judicial review of the Ombudsman's activity does not duplicate review by the Parliament. 
47 Prema tome, sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana nije udvostručavanje nadzora koji provodi Parlament.
48 As regards the alleged risk that judicial review of the Ombudsman's activity calls in question his independence, a finding of liability owing to damage occasioned by the Ombudsman's activity concerns not the personal liability of the Ombudsman but that of the Community. 
48 Što se tiče navodne opasnosti da sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana dovodi u pitanje njegovu neovisnost, ocjena odgovornosti zbog štete koju je uzrokovalo djelovanje ombudsmana odnosi se ne na osobnu odgovornost ombudsmana, već na odgovornost Zajednice.
It does not appear that the possibility that, under certain circumstances, the Community may incur liability owing to conduct on the part of the Ombudsman in the performance of his duties which is contrary to Community law is of such a nature as to call in question the Ombudsman's independence. 
Ne čini se da je, u određenim okolnostima, mogućnost da Zajednica snosi odgovornost za postupanje ombudsmana u obnašanju njegovih dužnosti koje je u suprotnosti s pravom Zajednice, takva da dovede u pitanje neovisnost ombudsmana.
49 According to settled case-law on the Community's liability for damage caused to individuals by a breach of Community law attributable to a Community institution or body, a right to reparation is afforded where three conditions are met: the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties (see Case C-472/00 P Commission v Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541, paragraph 25, and case-law cited). 
49 U skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom u području odgovornosti Zajednice za štetu nanesenu pojedincima kršenjem prava Zajednice koje se može pripisati instituciji ili tijelu Zajednice, pravo na naknadu priznaje se kada se ispune tri uvjeta, odnosno kada povrijeđeno pravo ima za cilj dodijeliti prava pojedincima, kada je povreda dovoljno ozbiljna i kada postoji izravna kauzalna veza između povrede obveze počinitelja djela i štete koju su pretrpjele oštećene strane (vidjeti presudu od 10. srpnja 2003., Komisija/Fresh Marine, C-472/00 P, Zb., str. I-7541., t. 25. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
As regards the second condition, the decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious, in circumstances such as those in the present case, is whether the Community institution or body concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion (Commission v Fresh Marine, cited above, paragraph 26). 
Vezano za drugi uvjet, odlučujući kriterij za utvrđivanje da je povreda prava Zajednice dovoljno ozbiljna, u okolnostima kakve jesu u ovom slučaju, jest očito i grubo nepoštovanje granica diskrecijske ovlasti od strane dotične države članice ili institucije Zajednice (gore navedena presuda Komisija/Fresh Marine, t. 26.).
50 In order to determine whether there has been a sufficiently serious breach of Community law rendering the Community non-contractually liable owing to the conduct of the Ombudsman, regard must be had to the specific nature of the latter's function. 
50 Kako bi se utvrdilo je li došlo do dovoljno ozbiljne povrede prava Zajednice čime bi Zajednica postala izvanugovorno odgovorna zbog postupanja ombudsmana, potrebno je uzeti u obzir posebnu prirodu njegove funkcije.
In that context, it should be borne in mind that the Ombudsman is merely under an obligation to use his best endeavours and that he enjoys wide discretion. 
U tom kontekstu valja imati na umu da ombudsman ima samo obvezu uložiti najveće napore i da on uživa široku marginu prosudbe.
51 Thus, contrary to the assertions of the Ombudsman and the Parliament, the review conducted by the latter over the former does not preclude judicial review which must be carried out with due regard for the specific nature of the Ombudsman's function. 
51 Stoga, suprotno tvrdnjama ombudsmana i Parlamenta, nadzor koji potonji provodi nad prvim ne isključuje sudski nadzor koji se mora provesti uz dužno poštovanje posebnosti funkcije ombudsmana.
52 Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not infringe the provisions of Community law governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties and review of the Ombudsman by declaring admissible in principle an action for damages founded on the Community's non-contractual liability as a result of the alleged mishandling by the Ombudsman of a complaint. 
52 Prema tome, Prvostupanjski sud nije povrijedio odredbe prava Zajednice kojima se uređuje obavljanje dužnosti ombudsmana i nadzor ombudsmana time što je, zbog toga što je ombudsman navodno pogrešno postupao s pritužbom, u načelu proglasio dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete temeljenu na izvanugovornoj odgovornosti Zajednice.
The Court of First Instance was therefore entitled to find, in paragraph 57 of the judgment appealed against, that not only does the Ombudsman enjoy very wide discretion as regards the merits of complaints and the way in which he deals with them, and that in so doing he is under no obligation as to the result to be achieved, but also that, 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 committed a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in the performance of his duties likely to cause damage to the citizen concerned. 
Prvostupanjski sud je dakle imao pravo smatrati u točki 57. pobijane presude da ombudsman ne samo da uživa široku marginu prosudbe u pogledu osnovanosti pritužbi i načina na koji postupa s njima te da pri tome nema obavezu u pogledu rezultata koje treba postići, nego isto tako da, 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 dovoljno ozbiljnu povredu prava Zajednice u obavljanju svojih dužnosti koja može biti takva da prouzroči štetu predmetnom građaninu.
53 The first limb of the plea is therefore unfounded. 
53 Stoga prvi dio žalbenog razloga nije osnovan.
Second limb of the plea 
Drugi dio žalbenog razloga
54 In the second limb of his plea the Ombudsman, supported by the Parliament, criticises the Court of First Instance for erring in law by declaring admissible an action for damages which in actual fact is seeking to question the legality of the inquiry and the decision to close the procedure although, under the case-law of the Court of First Instance and the Court, the legal remedies provided for in that regard by the Treaty are not available where the Ombudsman is concerned. 
54 U drugom dijelu žalbenog razloga ombudsman, uz potporu Parlamenta, prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu da je počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava proglasivši dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete koja u biti nastoji dovesti u pitanje zakonitost istražnog postupka i odluke o zaključenju postupka iako su prema sudskoj praksi Prvostupanjskog suda i Suda pravna sredstva koje Ugovor predviđa u tu svrhu nedopuštena kada se radi o ombudsmanu.
55 The Ombudsman argued in particular that the inquiries which he conducts and the conclusions which he reaches, even if they are termed `decisions', have no direct legal effect on the situation of citizens and no binding legal effect on the institution concerned. 
55 Ombudsman je posebno isticao da istrage koje vodi i zaključci do kojih dođe, čak i ako se oni nazivaju „odluke", nemaju izravan pravni učinak na položaj građana niti imaju obvezujući pravni učinak za predmetnu instituciju.
Consequently, he considers that, even if his inquiries were vitiated by formal defects and his conclusions by errors of law, those inquiries and conclusions could not in any event occasion loss to complainants who have suffered damage owing to maladministration attributable to a Community institution and not to the Ombudsman. 
Slijedom toga on smatra da je čak i ako je u njegovim istragama bilo formalnih nedostataka i u njegovim zaključcima pogrešaka koje se tiču prava, te istrage i zaključci ni u kojem slučaju nisu mogli uzrokovati štetu podnositeljima pritužbe koji su štetu pretrpjeli zbog nepravilnosti u djelovanju koja se može pripisati instituciji Zajednice, a ne ombudsmanu.