natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Summary of decision on complaint 2411/2003/MHZ against the European Commission
Zhrnutie rozhodnutia o s.ažnosti 2411/2003/MHZ na Európsku komisiu
The complainant, an NGO registered in the United Kingdom, alleged, among other things, that the funding procedure under the Commission’s AGIS framework programme for police and judicial cooperation in criminal mamers was overly complex and di U cult to understand.
S.ažovateö, mimovládna organizácia zaregistrovaná v Spojenom kráöovstve, okrem iného uviedol, že postup poskytovania fi na nfiÏ nej podpory rámcového programu Komisie AGIS pre policajnú a justiÏnú spoluprácu v trestných veciach je príliš zložitý a .ažko zrozumiteöný.
According to the complainant, the Commission had obliged it to undertake expensive and time-consuming activities in order to meet formal admissibility criteria, although the Commission had known from the start that the complainant would not be able to fulfil the eligibility criterion of having partner organisations involved in its project.
Podöa s.ažovateöa ho Komisia zaviazala vykona. nákladné a Ïasovo nároÏné Ïinnosti pre splnenie formálnych kritérií prípustnosti, hoci od zaÏiatku vedela, že s.ažovateö nedokáže splni. kritérium spôsobilosti vyžadujúce, aby mal partnerskú organizáciu zapojenú v projekte.
It claimed that the Commission should compensate it for the losses it incurred in trying to meet the formal admissibility criteria.
Žiadal, aby mu Komisia poskytla náhradu za straty, ktoré mu vznikli pri úsilí splni. formálne kritériá prípustnosti.
According to the Commission, a high proportion of applications under the AGIS programme had had shortcomings as regards the requirements set out in the call.
Podöa Komisie obsahoval vysoký podiel žiadostí v rámci programu AGIS nedostatky súvisiace s požiadavkami stanovenými vo výzve.
It acknowledged that the use of a single application form for two d iT erent types of grants may have contributed to these shortcomings.
Komisia uznala, že k týmto nedostatkom môže prispieva. používanie jedného formulára žiadosti pre dva rôzne typy grantov.
Because of this and because the complainant’s project had appeared to meet the policy priority of improving assistance in the fi eld of fundamental rights, the proposal had been pre-selected.
Vzhöadom nato, a pretože projekt s.ažovateöa spôýal prioritu politiky, ktorou je zlepšovanie pomoci v oblasti öudských práv, bol tento návrh predbežne vybratý.
When the complainant’s application for an operating grant was not ready in time to meet the deadline, the Commission had proposed to the complainant that it should modify its application and apply for a project grant instead.
KeÒ žiados. s.ažovateöa o operaÏný grant nebola hotová vÏas nato, aby bola predložená v termíne, Komisia s.ažovateöovi navrhla, aby upravil svoju žiados. a uchádzal sa namiesto toho o projektový grant.
However, since the complainant had, among other things, failed to amach a partnership declaration, the Commission had not selected his proposal.
KeÒže však s.ažovateö okrem iného nepripojil k žiadosti vyhlásenie o partnerstve, Komisia jeho návrh nevybrala.
The Ombudsman considered it regremable that the application procedure under the AGIS programme appeared to have led to di U culties.
Ombudsman vyjadril poöutovanie nad tým, že postup pri predkladaní žiadostí v programe AGIS spôsobuje .ažkosti.
However, he noted that the Commission had recognised these di U culties and had taken corrective action.
Pripomenul však, že Komisia tieto .ažkosti uznala a podnikla kroky na nápravu.
Furthermore, he considered that the Commission had provided a reasonable explanation as to why it had advised the complainant to apply for a project grant instead of an operating grant.
Malej dospel k názoru, že Komisia primerane vysvetlila, preÏo s.ažovateöovi poradila, aby žiadal o projektový grant namiesto operaÏného grantu.
However, the Ombudsman recalled that principles of good administration require an oUcial, where necessary, to advise the public on how a mamer which comes within his or her remit is to be pursued and how to proceed in dealing with the mamer.
Ombudsman však pripomenul, že zásady dobrej správy vyžadujú, aby úradník v prípade potreby verejnosti poradil, ako naloži. s vecou, ktorá spadá do jeho pôsobnosti a ako postupova. pri riešení tejto veci.
He took the view that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission should have ensured that the advice it gave to the complainant was appropriate to its particular situation.
Dospel k názoru, že v konkrétnych okolnostiach tohto prípadu mala Komisia zabezpeÏi., aby rada, ktorú s.ažovateöovi poskytla, bola primeraná jeho konkrétnej situácii.
The Commission’s failure to draw the complainant’s amention to a fundamental condition of eligibility, namely the requirement to have partner organisations, was therefore an instance of maladministration.
KeÒže Komisia s.ažovateöa neupozornila na základnú podmienku spôsobilosti, menovite na požiadavku ma. partnerskú organizáciu, išlo o prípad nesprávneho úradného postupu.
As regards the complainant’s claim for compensation, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had neither quantified its claim nor submimed any evidence of its losses.
V súvislosti so žiados.ou s.ažovateöa o poskytnutie náhrady ombudsman pripomenul, že s.ažovateö svoju žiados. nevyÏíslil, ani nepredložil doklad o stratách, ktoré mu vznikli.
He therefore took the view that if the complainant wished to pursue this claim, it should first address the Commission directly in the light of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration.
Dospel preto k názoru, že ak s.ažovateö chce vo veci svojej žiadosti Òalej kona., mal by sa vzhöadom na zistenie ombudsmana o nesprávnom úradnom postupe obráti. najprv priamo na Komisiu.
FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION REGARDING DATA PROTECTION
NEPOSKYTNUTIE INFORMÁCIÍ V SÚVISLOSTI S OCHRANOU ÚDAJOV
Summary of decision on complaint 224/2004/PB against the European Commission
Zhrnutie rozhodnutia o s.ažnosti 224/2004/PB na Európsku komisiu
The complaint concerned the response of the Commission’s Representation in Copenhagen to the complainant’s request for information about the processing of data relating to him.
S.ažnos. sa týkala odpovede zastúpenia Komisie v Kodani na žiados. s.ažovateöa o informácie týkajúce sa spracovania údajov súvisiacich s jeho osobou.
On 10 June 2003, the Representation had telephoned the complainant in relation to a request for public access to documents.
10. júna 2003 sa zastúpenie telefonicky spojilo so s.ažovateöom v súvislosti so žiados.ou o verejný prístup k dokumentom.
On that same day, the complainant asked the Representation to inform him about how it had obtained his telephone number.
S.ažovateö v ten istý deý zastúpenie požiadal, aby ho informovalo, ako získalo jeho telefónne Ïíslo.
The Representation informed him, on 13 June 2003, that his telephone number had been “indicated by you in your [previous] complaint to the European
Zastúpenie ho 13. júna 2003 informovalo, že toto telefónne Ïíslo „ste uviedli vo Vašej [predošlej] s.ažnosti európskemu
88 kg606791inside_EN.indd 88
86 kg606807inside_SK.indd 86
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ROZHODNUTIA PO VYŠETROVANÍ ombudsmanovi“.
Directive 95/46 on data protection17 and which contains essentially the same requirements as those set out in Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 on data protection18.
Jeho žiados. bola predložená podöa dánskych právnych predpisov, ktorými sa implementuje smernica 95/46 o ochrane údajov17 a ktoré obsahujú v podstate rovnaké požiadavky ako sú požiadavky stanovené v Ïlánku 13 nariadenia Ï. 45/2001 o ochrane údajov18.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the following facts.
Vyšetrovanie ombudsmana odhalilo nasledujúce skutoÏnosti.
The Commission’s Representation had failed to inform the complainant as to whether the telephone number that it had used to contact him on 10 June 2003 had actually been registered or not.
Zastúpenie Komisie s.ažovateöa neinformovalo, Ïi telefónne Ïíslo, ktoré použilo pri kontakte s ním 10. júna 2003 bolo v skutoÏnosti zaregistrované alebo nie.
It was only in its opinion to the Ombudsman that the Commission clarified that no registration of that telephone number had taken place.
Komisia až vo svojom stanovisku pre ombudsmana objasnila, že sa nevykonala žiadna registrácia telefónneho Ïísla.
It further emerged that when the Representation informed the complainant on 27 August 2003 about an incorrect telephone number that had been registered under his name and that had subsequently been deleted, it had failed to give any information about when that number had been registered or when it had been deleted.
Malej sa ukázalo, že keÒ zastúpenie 27. augusta 2003 s.ažovateöa informovalo o nesprávnom telefónnom Ïísle, ktoré bolo zaregistrované s jeho menom, a ktoré bolo neskôr vymazané, neuviedlo žiadne informácie o tom, kedy bolo toto Ïíslo zaregistrované ani kedy bolo vymazané.
Furthermore, it was clear from the Representation’s lemer to the complainant of 27 August 2003 that its earlier lemer of 1 July 2003, in which it had stated that the “Commission’s Representation in Denmark has not previously registered other personal data under your name”, was incorrect, since this lemer failed to mention the incorrect telephone number that had been registered.
Z listu zastúpenia s.ažovateöovi z 27. augusta 2003 bolo tiež zrejmé, že predchádzajúci list z 1. júla 2003, v ktorom zastúpenie uviedlo, že „zastúpenie Komisie v Dánsku doteraz nezaregistrovalo iné osobné údaje pod Vaším menom“, nebol správny, pretože sa nezmienil o nesprávnom telefónnom Ïísle, ktoré bolo zaregistrované.
On the basis of these findings, the Ombudsman considered that the Representation had failed to give correct and easily understandable information in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001.
Na základe týchto zistení ombudsman dospel k názoru, že zastúpenie neuviedlo správne a öahko zrozumiteöné informácie v súlade s Ïlánkom 13 nariadenia Ï. 45/2001.
This constituted an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman made a critical remark.
Táto skutoÏnos. predstavovala prípad nesprávneho úradného postupu a ombudsman vydal kritickú poznámku.
The Ombudsman informed the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of the decision, which also included some general comments on the Ombudsman’s intentions as regards the provision of information to, and consultation with, the EDPS in handling complaints relating to data protection.
Ombudsman informoval Európskeho dozorného úradníka pre ochranu údajov (EDPS) o rozhodnutí, ktoré obsahovalo tiež niekoöko všeobecných poznámok o zámeroch ombudsmana v súvislosti s poskytovaním informácií EDPS a konzultáciami s ním pri riešení s.ažností týkajúcich sa ochrany údajov.
The Commission subsequently expressed its regret that Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 had been breached in this case.
Komisia potom vyjadrila poöutovanie nad tým, že v tomto prípade bol porušený Ïlánok 13 nariadenia Ï. 45/2001.
LATE PAYMENT FOR CONTRIBUTION TO GALILEI PROJECT
ONESKORENÁ PLATBA ZA PRÍSPEVOK K PROJEKTU GALILEI
Summary of decision on complaint 530/2004/GG against the European Commission
Zhrnutie rozhodnutia o s.ažnosti 530/2004/GG na Európsku komisiu
The complainant, a small German company, was a sub-contractor in the “Galilei Project”, set up to complete the preparatory analysis for “Galileo”, the European initiative for a global navigation satellite system.
S.ažovateö, malá nemecká spoloÏnos., bol subdodávateöom v „projekte Galilei“, ustanovenom na ukonÏenie prípravnej analýzy pre „Galileo“, európsku iniciatívu pre globálny navigaÏný satelitný systém.
According to the complainant, significant delays between submission of its cost statements and payment were mostly due to the Commission and not to the intermediaries involved in the project.
Podöa s.ažovateöa bolo výrazné oneskorenie medzi predložením jeho vyúÏtovania nákladov a ich úhradou spôsobené najmä Komisiou a nie sprostredkovateömi zapojenými do projektu.
Furthermore, it complained that the Commission had not released a guarantee sum retained pending the final assessment of the project.
S.ažovateö Òalej uviedol, že Komisia neuvoönila fi na nfiÏ n ú záruku, zadržanú až do závereÏného vyhodnotenia projektu.
As regards the complainant, the amount involved was nearly EUR 13 000.
V prípade s.ažovateöa išlo o sumu takmer 13 000 EUR.
This had caused it severe financial problems.
Spôsobilo mu to veömi vážne fi na nfiÏ n é problémy.
The complainant claimed that the guarantee sum should be released and that interest on account of late payment should be paid.
S.ažovateö žiadal, aby bola fi na nfiÏ n á záruka uvoönená, a aby mu bol zaplatený úrok z oneskorenia.
The Commission argued that a period of 240 days between the submission of a cost statement and the payment to a sub-contractor was normal given the structure of the project and that, by signing the contract, the complainant had accepted that 15% would be retained as a guarantee until all project deliverables had been submimed to, and approved by, the Commission.
Komisia uviedla, že obdobie 240 dní medzi predložením vyúÏtovania nákladov a platbou subdodávateöovi je vzhöadom na štruktúru projektu obvyklá, a že s.ažovateö podpisom zmluvy súhlasil so zadržaním 15 % ako záruky, až kým nebudú všetky náležitosti projektu predložené Komisii a Komisia ich neschváli.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.
Smernica Európskeho parlamentu a Rady 95/46/ES z 24. októbra 1995 o ochrane fyzických osôb pri spracovaní osobných údajov a voönom pohybe týchto údajov, Ú. v. 1995 L 281, s.31.
89 kg606791inside_EN.indd 89
87 kg606807inside_SK.indd 87
In reply, the Commission referred to the extremely complex structure of the project, which involved more than 90 contractors and sub-contractors.
Komisia sa v odpovedi odvolala na výnimoÏne zložitú štruktúru projektu, v ktorom bolo zapojených viac než 90 dodávateöov a subdodávateöov.
It oTered its apologies for the delays but submimed that they could hardly be considered substantial.
Ponúkla svoje ospravedlnenie za oneskorenia, ale prehlásila, že ich sotva možno považova. za významné.
The Commission also argued that the early release of a partial final payment to some of the principal contractors would not be consistent with the common responsibility of all contractors under the Galilei grant contract.
Uviedla tiež, že predÏasné uvoönenie Ïasti závereÏnej platby pre jedného z hlavných dodávateöov by nebolo v súlade so spoloÏnou zodpovednos.ou všetkých dodávateöov podöa grantovej zmluvy projektu Galilei.
The Ombudsman noted that there was nothing to suggest that the Commission had not been aware of the complexity of the contract when it commimed itself to making payments within a certain period of time.
Ombudsman pripomenul, že niÏ nenaznaÏuje, že Komisia si nebola vedomá zložitosti zmluvy, keÒ sa zaviazala uhrádza. platby v urÏitej lehote.
Although comparatively small, the delays constituted maladministration.
Hoci oneskorenia boli relatívne malé, predstavovali nesprávny úradný postup.
As regards the guarantee sum, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission was fully entitled — and even obliged — to take measures to protect the Community’s financial interests when entering into contracts.
V súvislosti s fi na nfiÏ n ou zárukou sa ombudsman domnieval, že Komisia má plné právo – ba dokonca povinnos. – pr`a. pri uzatváraní zmlúv opatrenia na ochranu fi na nfiÏ n ý c h záujmov SpoloÏenstva.
However, he was not convinced that the Commission would have been unable to release the sum to the complainant, given that the Commission had not called into doubt the quality of the complainant’s work or the costs it had declared.
Nebol však presvedÏený o tom, že Komisia by nemohla uvoöni. sumu pre s.ažovateöa, keÒže Komisia nespochybnila kvalitu jeho práce ani náklady, ktoré uviedol.
Given that the Commission had in the meantime released the payment, however, there were no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.
Vzhöadom nato, že Komisia medzitým túto platbu uvoönila, však už neboli dôvody na Òalšie vyšetrovanie vo vz.ahu k tomuto aspektu prípadu.
As regards the claim for interest, the Ombudsman considered that the structure of the contractual arrangement in the present case had made it very unlikely that the Commission would ever have to pay interest in cases where it failed to forward payments due to sub-contractors in time.
V súvislosti so žiados.ou o zaplatenie úroku ombudsman dospel k názoru, že vzhöadom na štruktúru zmluvných ustanovení v tomto prípade bolo veömi nepravdepodobné, že Komisia by vôbec niekedy musela zaplati. úroky v prípadoch, keÒ subdodávateöom vÏas neodoslala splatné Ïiastky.
The Ombudsman made a draW recommendation to the Commission that it should compensate the complainant.
Ombudsman vydal pre Komisiu návrh odporúÏania, podöa ktorého mala s.ažovateöa odškodni..
The Commission rejected the draW recommendation on the basis that it had not required the contractors to use a particular model of sub-contracting contract and that, therefore, the complainant could have negotiated specific conditions for the payment of interest with the intermediary.
Komisia odmietla návrh odporúÏania na základe toho, že od dodávateöov nevyžadovala, aby použili urÏitý model subdodávateöských zmlúv, a že s.ažovateö preto mohol rokova. o konkrétnych podmienkach pre zaplatenie úroku so sprostredkovateöom.
The Ombudsman took the view that it did not appear very likely that a small or medium-sized company, such as the complainant, could demand changes to the conditions of a model contract.
Ombudsman dospel k názoru, že sa nezdá by. veömi pravdepodobné, aby malá alebo stredná firma, akou bol aj s.ažovateö, mohla požadova. zmeny podmienok v modelovej zmluve.
However, since this possibility could not be excluded, the Ombudsman’s earlier finding concerning the payment of interest could not be maintained.
KeÒže sa však táto možnos. nedala vylúÏi., nebolo možné trva. na predchádzajúcom zistení ombudsmana o zaplatení úroku.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considered that small and medium-sized companies hardly had a realistic possibility of taking part in such projects in circumstances like these.
Ombudsman sa však domnieval, že malé a stredné firmy by sotva mali reálnu možnos. zúÏastni. sa na podobných projektoch za takýchto okolností.
He therefore made a further remark suggesting that the Commission could consider altering its standard contractual practice so that payment of interest to contractors in respect of amounts due to sub-contractors that have properly fulfilled their obligations would become automatic.
Vydal preto Òalšiu poznámku, v ktorej Komisii navrhol, že by mohla zváži. zmenu svojich štandardných zmluvných postupov tak, aby vyplatenie úroku dodávateöom v súvislosti s Ïiastkami splatnými subdodávateöom, ktorí riadne splnili svoje záväzky, bolo automatické.
In the Ombudsman’s view, such a change would constitute a useful confirmation of the Commission’s commitment to the interests of small and medium-sized companies.
Podöa názoru ombudsmana by takáto zmena predstavovala užitoÏné potvrdenie záväzku Komisie voÏi záujmom malých a stredne veökých firiem. firiem.
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had taken note of the critical remark and the further remark and that it will try to take into account the interests of SMEs in future standard contracts to the extent that this is compatible with the Community’s financial interests and the legislative provisions in force.
Komisia informovala ombudsmana, že kritickú poznámku a Òalšiu poznámku vzala na vedomie, a že sa v budúcich štandardných zmluvách pokúsi zohöadni. záujmy malých a stredných podnikov (MSP) v rozsahu zluÏiteönom s fi na nfiÏ n ý mi záujmami SpoloÏenstva a platnými právnymi predpismi.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
PRÍSTUP KOMISIE K POSTUPU VÝBEROVÉHO KONANIA
Summary of decision on complaint 538/2004/TN against the European Commission
Zhrnutie rozhodnutia o s.ažnosti 538/2004/TN na Európsku komisiu
The Commission rejected the complainant company’s oTer under a call for tenders.
Komisia odmietla ponuku spoloÏnosti s.ažovateöa v rámci vyhlásenej verejnej sú.aže.
The complainant alleged, among other things, that the Commission sent confusing messages containing inconsistent reasons for rejecting the oTer.
S.ažovateö okrem iného uviedol, že Komisia mu poslala mätúce správy, ktoré obsahovali rozporné dôvody odmietnutia ponuky.
The complainant further questioned why it had not received a certain lemer from the Commission by fax.
S.ažovateö sa Òalej pýtal, preÏo nedostal urÏitý list Komisie faxom.
Finally, the complainant explained that it had received indications that, contrary to the wording of the call for tender, one of the bids accepted had been submimed only as an original, without copies.
S.ažovateö na záver vysvetlil, že získal informácie, že v rozpore so znením vyhlásenia verejnej sú.aže bola jedna pr`atá ponuka predložená len ako originál bez kópií.
The Commission stated that, in response to a message from the complainant, it had provided additional information on the reasons for rejecting the complainant’s bid.
Komisia uviedla, že v odpovedi na správu s.ažovateöa poskytla dodatoÏné informácie o dôvodoch zamietnutia ponuky s.ažovateöa.
It explained that it has no obligation to send lemers by fax but that it normally does so and that, according to its internal rules (the Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures), it does not consider inadmissible a bid that is not submimed in three copies.
VÝROČNÁ SPRÁVA 2005
The Ombudsman found that the complainant had wrimen to the Commission trying to rebut the lamer’s reasons for rejecting its bid and that, in reply, the Commission had provided further reasons for rejecting the bid, without explaining that these reasons were additional to the ones given in its first lemer.
Ombudsman zistil, že s.ažovateö sa písomne obrátil na Komisiu so snahou vyvráti. jej dôvody pre zamietnutie jeho ponuky, a že Komisia v odpovedi uviedla Òalšie dôvody zamietnutia ponuky bez toho, aby vysvetlila, že tieto dôvody sú dodatkom k dôvodom uvedeným v jej prvom liste.
Furthermore, the Commission did not appear to have acknowledged or answered the complainant’s amempt to rebut the first reasons given for rejecting the bid.
Malej sa ukázalo, že Komisia neuznala pokus s.ažovateöa vyvráti. prvé dôvody uvedené v zamietnutí ponuky, ani na tento pokus neodpovedala.
In the Ombudsman’s view, therefore, the Commission had failed to reply as completely and accurately as possible to the complainant’s lemer, as required by the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Podöa názoru ombudsmana preto Komisia neodpovedala na list s.ažovateöa Ïo najúplnejšie a najpresnejšie, tak ako to vyžaduje Európsky kódex dobrej správnej praxe.
The Ombudsman also made two further remarks.
Ombudsman tiež vzniesol dve Òalšie poznámky.
The first suggested that the Commission consider formalising and clarifying its procedures with regard to the sending by fax of lemers concerning the evaluation of bids.
Prvá Komisii odporúÏala, aby zvážila formálne zakotvenie a sprehöadnenie svojich postupov v súvislosti so zasielaním listov týkajúcich sa hodnotenia ponúk faxom.
The second noted that point 10.5 of the Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures does not seem to correspond to the wording of the call for tender in question, which suggests that bids not submimed in one signed original and two copies will not be considered valid.
Druhá pripomínala, že znenie bodu 10.5 príruÏky postupov verejného obstarávania sa nezhoduje so znením dotknutého vyhlásenia verejnej sú.aže, v ktorom sa uvádza, že ponuky, ktoré nebudú predložené v jednom podpísanom origináli a dvoch kópiách sa budú považova. za neplatné.