natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Varuh človekovih pravic v svojem pismu zahteva črtanje zadnjega stavka, ki se nanaša na morebitno omejitev dostopa do podatkov, saj bi lahko škodil zaupanju javnosti v sposobnost varuha človekovih pravic za vodenje temeljitih preiskav.
In its letter the Ombudsman demands that the last sentence referring to a possible restriction to the access to information be suppressed, as it may harm the confidence of the public " in the Ombudsman's ability to conduct a thorough inquiry ".
Potreba, da ima varuh človekovih pravic dostop do ustreznih podatkov, da bi oblikoval utemeljeno sodbo o vsebini pritožb državljanov, je očitna.
The need for the Ombudsman to have access to all relevant information in order to make a grounded judgement of the merits of complains from the citizens is obvious.
Čeprav poudarja, da institucije v nobenem primeru do zdaj niso zavrnile dostopa do ustreznih dokumentov ali podatkov, varuh človekovih pravic meni, da bi zadevni stavek lahko privedel do morebitnih sporov in ogrozil zaupanje javnosti v dejavnost varuha človekovih pravic.
Although stressing that in no case have the institutions until now refused the access to the relevant documents or information, the Ombudsman considers that the sentence in question could lead to eventual conflicts and may harm the thrust of the public in the action of the Ombudsman.
Poleg tega je dopuščanje, da institucije " na podlagi utemeljenih razlogov tajnosti " zavrnejo dostop varuha človekovih pravic do ustrezne dokumentacije, ki jo potrebuje za oblikovanje svoje sodbe o primernosti dejanj uprave, preveč nejasno in pušča institucijam preširok manevrski prostor za presojo.
Furthermore, to admit that the institutions can " on duly substantiated grounds of secrecy " refuse the access of the Ombudsman to the relevant documentation that he needs to form his/hers judgement on the appropriateness of the actions of the administration is too vague and does leave a too wide margin of appreciation for the institutions.
Vsaka morebitna omejitev dostopa varuha človekovih pravic do podatkov mora temeljiti na strogih pravnih merilih in ne na takšnem odprtem pridržku, ki dopušča sami upravi opredelitev primerov, za katere meni, da zanje velja varovanje tajnosti.
Any eventual restriction of the access to information by the Ombudsman should be based on strict legal criteria and not on such an open clause that leaves to the administration itself the definition of the cases in which it considers that secrecy should apply.
Na drugi strani ni mogoče razumeti, kakšni " utemeljeni razlogi " lahko upravičijo " tajnost " podatkov, ki jih ima uprava, glede na varuha človekovih pravic, ker so tudi on ter njegovo osebje ravno tako kot institucije obvezani k varovanju tajnosti.
On the other hand, one does not see what kind of " duly substantiated grounds " can justify the " secrecy " of the information detained by the administration in the confronts of the Ombudsman, as this one, as well as his staff, is also bounded by the same duty of secrecy as the institutions.
Ni treba omenjati, da je vsak prispevek varuha človekovih pravic k izboljšanju dobrega upravljanja tudi v interesu institucij.
Not to mention that any contribution of the Ombudsman to improve good administration is also in the interest of the institutions.
S tega vidika se zdi omejitev, predvidena v zadnjem stavku odstavka 2, nezaželena in nekako pomeni znak neupravičenega nezaupanja v varuha človekovih pravic.
At this light, the restriction foreseen in the last sentence of paragraph 2 seems undesirable and somehow constitutes a sign of an unjustified distrust in the Ombudsman.
Zato se zdi primerno črtati zadevni stavek.
It appears thus convenient to delete the sentence in question.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da bi moral imeti varuh brezpogojen dostop do vseh informacij ali dokumentov.
However, this does not imply that the Ombudsman should have an unconditional access to all information or documents.
Priporočljiva je uvedba nepristranskih pravil, ki določajo dolžnosti varuha, kar zadeva dostop do zaupnih informacij ali dokumentov, posebej do dokumentov občutljive narave v smislu člena 9 uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 s 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
It is advisable to introduce objective rules establishing the duties of the Ombudsman in what concerns access to classified information or documents, maxime to sensitive documents within the meaning of article 9 of the Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Za to je potrebno za varuha uvesti le obveznost spoštovanja pravil, ki so popolnoma podobna veljavnim pravilom institucij ali organov, ki so posredovali te dokumente.
This can easily be done by establishing a duty for the Ombudsman to respect rules strictly similar to those in force in the institutions or bodies that supply those documents.
To je popolnoma skladno z notranjimi pravili različnih institucij, kar zadeva dostop do zaupnih informacij, zlasti z veljavnimi pravili Komisije glede notranjih varnostnih pravil (sklep Komisije z 29. novembra 2001 o spremembi svojega poslovnika).
This is perfectly on line with the internal rules existing in different institutions in what concerns the access to classified information, notably the rules in force in the Commission concerning internal rules of security (Commission Decision of 29 November 2001 amending its internal Rules of Procedure).
Hkrati je primerno poudariti tudi, da morajo institucije, ki posredujejo zaupne informacije ali dokumente, varuha obvestiti o tem.
In parallel it is convenient to stress that the institutions supplying classified information or documents to the Ombudsman must inform the Ombudsman of this classification.
Končno je koristno varuha in institucije pozvati tudi k sporazumu o konkretnih delovnih pravilih za posredovanje takšnih dokumentov kot najboljšemu načinu za preprečevanje sporov v prihodnosti.
Finally, it is also useful to invite the Ombudsman and the institutions to agree on concrete operational rules for the supply of such documents, as the best way to avoid disputes in the future.
Podobno spremembo bo treba uvesti tudi v uvod statuta varuha človekovih pravic.
A similar modification will also have to be introduced in the preamble of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, 31.5.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p.
Treba je omeniti, da je Parlament to vprašanje že obravnaval leta 2001 v zgoraj navedeni resoluciji s 6. septembra.
It should be noted that the Parliament has already dealt with this question in 2001, in the framework of the aforementioned resolution of the 6 September.
Spremembe so zlasti zadevale dokumente, ki izvirajo iz držav članic.
These concerned notably documents originating from Member States.
Pričevanje uradnikov
The testimonial of officials
Zadnji pododstavek odstavka 2 člena 3 statuta varuha človekovih pravic določa, da:
Article 3, paragraph 2, last sub-paragraph of the Statute of the Ombudsman stipulates that:
" Uradniki in drugi uslužbenci institucij in organov Skupnosti morajo na zahtevo varuha človekovih pravic pričati; govorijo v imenu svojih uradov in v skladu z njihovimi navodili ter jih še naprej obvezuje dolžnost poslovne tajnosti".
" Officials and other servants of Community institutions and bodies must testify at the request of the Ombudsman; they shall speak on behalf of and in accordance with instructions from their administrations and shall continue to be bound by their duty of professional secrecy ".
Varuh človekovih pravic v svojem pismu meni, da zadnji stavek tega člena vsebuje " nejasne" pogoje, ki bi jih javno mnenje lahko obravnavalo v smislu, da " od priče ni vedno potrebno zahtevati, da pove resnico ".
The Ombudsman considers in his letter that the last sentence of this article contains " obscure " conditions which may be interpreted by public opinion as meaning that " witness might not always be required to tell the truth ".
To bi lahko tudi ogrozilo zaupanje državljanov v sposobnost varuha človekovih pravic, da vodi temeljite preiskave.
This may also hinder the thrust of citizens in the capacity of the Ombudsman to conduct thorough inquiries.
Dejansko je težko razložiti javnemu mnenju, zakaj bi uradniki morali pričati pred varuhom človekovih pravic "v imenu svojih uradov in v skladu z njihovimi navodili" in ne na podlagi poznavanja dejstev, ki jih varuh človekovih pravic raziskuje.
It is in fact difficult to explain to public opinion why officials should testify before the Ombudsman " on behalf and in accordance with the instructions from their administrations " and not on the basis of the knowledge they have of the facts upon which the Ombudsman is inquiring.
To bi se celo lahko razlagalo v pomenu, da so upravičeni do laganja varuhu človekovih pravic, če so jim bila dana takšna navodila.
This could even be interpreted as implying that they may be entitled to lye to the Ombudsman if they are instructed to do so.
To seveda niso standardi, ki ustrezajo zahtevam sodobne in odprte uprave, in bi ne izpolnjevali zahtev pojmovanja dobre uprave, priznane kot temeljne pravice evropskih državljanov (člen 41 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah).
This is clearly not the kind of standards that correspond to the demands of a modern and open administration and would not meet the requirements of the concept of good administration, recognized as a fundamental right of European citizens (article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
Zato bi bilo gotovo treba črtati ta stavek.
Consequently, this sentence clearly should be deleted.
Informacije o morebitni kriminalni ali nezakoniti dejavnosti
Information concerning possible criminal or illegal activity
Namesto zgolj opozarjanja nacionalnih pristojnih organov, kot predvideva sedanji osnutek člena 4, predlaga, da se varuhu človekovih pravic omogoči izbira med opozarjanjem nacionalnih organov ali institucij in organov Unije, na primer urada OLAF, bodočega evropskega javnega tožilstva ali katerega koli drugega organa s pristojnostmi na tem področju, ki bi bil lahko ustanovljen v prihodnosti.
Instead of only alerting the national competent authorities, as the present drafting of article 4 foresees, he proposes to allow the Ombudsman to have the choice between alerting the national authorities or the Union's competent institutions and bodies, such as for instance OLAF or the future European Public Prosecutor, or any other organism with competencies in this field that could be created in the future.
Treba je priznati, da bi v nekaterih primerih dejansko lahko bilo bolj priporočljivo najprej obvestiti evropske organe.
It should be recognized that in some cases it may be in fact more advisable to alert in first hand the Europeans authorities or bodies.
To bi lahko zgodilo, če bi se sumljive dejavnosti v zvezi z goljufijo v škodo finančnih interesov EU ali korupcijo, ki jo odkrije varuh človekovih pravic, lahko ustrezneje obravnavale prek disciplinskih pristojnosti evropskih institucij ali bi jih lahko bolje preiskoval OLAF ali bodoče evropsko javno tožilstvo kot nacionalni organi posamezne države članice.
It could be the case when doubtful activities concerning fraud against the financial interests of the EU or corruption spotted by the Ombudsman can be dealt more appropriately through the disciplinary competencies of the European institutions or can be better investigated by OLAF or by the future European Public Prosecutor than by the national authorities of a single Member State.
Poleg tega moramo opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 22a kadrovskih predpisov velja za vse javne uslužbence evropskih institucij, vključno z osebjem varuha človekovih pravic, obveznost obveščanja svojih nadrejenih ali OLAF-a o vsaki morebitni nezakoniti dejavnosti, tudi goljufiji ali korupciji v škodo interesov Unije.
Moreover, we should remember that, according to article 22a of the Staff Regulations, all civil servants of the European institutions, including the staff of the Ombudsman, are bound by the duty to inform their superiors or the OLAF of any possible illegal activity, including fraud or corruption detrimental to the interests of the Union.
Sodelovanje z drugimi mednarodnimi institucijami
Cooperation with other international institutions
"Varuh človekovih pravic lahko, kolikor to prispeva k učinkovitejšim raziskavam ter boljši zaščiti pravic in interesov oseb, ki se pri njem pritožijo, sodeluje z istovrstnimi organi v določenih državah članicah, in sicer pod pogojem, da ravna skladno z veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo.
" Insofar as it may help to make his enquiries more efficient and better safeguard the rights and interests of persons who make complaints to him, the Ombudsman may cooperate with authorities of the same type in certain Member States provided he complies with the national law applicable.
Varuh človekovih pravic pri tem ne sme zahtevati dokumentov, do katerih na podlagi člena 3 sicer nima dostopa." , da bi varuhu človekovih pravic omogočili sodelovanje z drugimi institucijami z namenom spodbujanja in varstva temeljnih pravic.
The Ombudsman may not by this means demand to see documents to which he would not have access under Article 3. " in order to allow the Ombudsman to cooperate with other institutions for the promotion and protection of Fundamental Rights.
V ta namen je treba opozoriti, da čeprav ima manjšina nacionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic držav članic nekatere posebne pristojnosti glede varstva temeljnih pravic državljanov (vključno s pravico do pritožbe na Sodišče), to ne velja za večino njih, pa tudi ne za evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
To this purpose, one must remember that although a minority of national Ombudsman of Member States have some specific competencies in what concerns the protection of Fundamental Rights of citizens (including the right of appealing to Court), this is not the case of the majority of them and it is not the case of the European Ombudsman.
Vendar ni mogoče zanikati, da bi kot preprosto sodelovanje brez posebnih novih varuhovih pristojnosti, ki bi sčasoma lahko privedle do spora glede pristojnosti drugih institucij ali organov Unije, stiki in izmenjave izkušenj med varuhom človekovih pravic in takšnimi mednarodnimi strukturami lahko obogatili obe strani in pomagali izboljšati delovanje evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, kar zadeva spodbujanje "d obre uprave ", ki je priznana kot temeljna pravica evropskih državljanov v Listini temeljnih pravic.
However, it is not deniable that, as a simple cooperation, with no specific new competencies associated to it that could eventually conflict with the competencies of other institutions or bodies of Union, contacts and exchange of experiences between the Ombudsman and such international structures may be enriching for both parts and help improving the performance of the European Ombudsman in what concerns the promotion of " good administration ", recognized as a fundamental right of European citizens by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
To pojasnjuje predloge sprememb 1, 3 in 6 (prvi del).
This explains amendments 1, 3 and 6 (first part).
MNENJE OdboRa za peticije
OPINION of the Committee on Petitions
o predlogu sklepa Evropskega parlamenta, ki spreminja Sklep Evropskega parlamenta 94/262/ESPJ, ES, Euratom z 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog varuha človekovih pravic
on a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament amending its Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties
Za zagotovitev možnosti demokratičnega delovanja je Evropska unija vedno potrebovala legitimacijo svojih državljanov, kar še toliko bolj velja ob širitvah.
In order to ensure that it is able to function democratically, the European Union has always needed the legitimisation of its citizens – and this is all the more the case as it expands.
Takšna legitimacija je neposredno odvisna od veliko dejavnikov, vključno z zaupanjem v varen in nastajajoč sistem vrednot, ki podpirajo temeljne pravice evropskih državljanov.
Such legitimisation directly depends on a number of factors, including confidence in a secure and evolving system of values which uphold the fundamental rights of European citizens.
V procesu evropskega združevanja je bil dosežen zgodovinski mejnik, ker je potreba po povezovanju med Unijo in evropskimi državljani postala bolj jasna kot kdaj koli prej.
A historic milestone has been reached in the process of European integration insofar as the need for communication between the Union and European citizens has become clearer than ever.
To predvsem pomeni, da mora Evropska unija upoštevati zaskrbljenost svojih državljanov in jih pomiriti, da si institucije nenehno prizadevajo za izpolnjevanje njihovih pričakovanj.
First and foremost, this means that the European Union is required to take on board the concerns of its citizens and succeed in reassuring them that its institutions are constantly endeavouring to meet their expectations.
Zaradi verodostojnosti mora takšno prizadevanje ohranjati stik z zgodovinskim razvojem in novimi zahtevami, ki jih je treba izpolniti, da se zagotovi usklajeno delovanje Unije.
In order to be credible, such endeavours must keep step with historic developments and the fresh requirements which must be met as a result to ensure the harmonious functioning of the Union.
Institucionalna struktura Evropske unije je oblikovana tako, da izraža dvojno osnovno načelo „Unija držav in Unija narodov“ ter se temu načelu prilagaja.
The institutional structure of the European Union is fashioned so as to reflect and conform to the dual basic principle of 'Union of States and Union of Peoples'.
Institucije Unije predstavljajo države in ljudi.
The institutions of the Union represent both the States and the people.
Evropski parlament je edina institucija, ki predstavlja ljudi.
The European Parliament is only one of the institutions representing the people.
Glavni cilj Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic kot institucije, ki jo ureja načelo pravne države, je zagotoviti pravilno ravnanje institucij in organov Evropske unije pri obravnavanju posameznikov, pri čemer se jim izkaže spoštovanje in s tem, kadar je mogoče, krepi njihovo zaupanje v institucije in organe ter v celotno evropsko zgradbo.
The primary objective of the European Ombudsman, as an institution governed by the rule of law, is to ensure correct conduct by the institutions and bodies of the European Union in their dealings with members of the public, showing due respect for them and thereby strengthening their confidence in these institutions and bodies and in the European edifice as a whole, wherever possible.
Predlogi v zvezi s pregledom sklepa Evropskega parlamenta 94/262/ESPJ, ES, Euratom z 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog varuha človekovih pravic, kakor je vključen v prilogo X poslovnika Parlamenta,
The proposals relating to the review of the decision of the European Parliament 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties as incorporated into Annex X to the Rules of Procedure of Parliament
Sklep, spremenjen s sklepom Evropskega parlamenta z dne 14. marca 2002, 2002/262/ES, ESPJ, Euratom (UL L 92, 9.4.2002, str.
Decision amended by the Decision of the European Parliament of 14 March 2002, 2002/262/EC, ECSC, Euratom (OJ L 92, 9.4.2002, p.
1 so posebno pomembni zaradi zgoraj zapisanih opažanj.
1 acquire particular significance in the light of the above observations.
Pomembno je, da se te dopolnitve sprejmejo, če učinkovito dopolnjujejo delovanje varuha človekovih pravic, kot ga določa primarna zakonodaja Evropske unije.
Insofar as these modifications effectively equip the Ombudsman to function as required by European Union primary legislation, it is important that they be adopted.
Odbor za peticije poziva Odbor za ustavne zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da v svoj predlog resolucije vključi naslednje pobude:
The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
Poseganje v zadeve pred sodišči
Intervention in cases before courts
Ob upoštevanju določb statuta (člen 40, odstavek 2) in poslovnika (člen 93) Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti lahko možnost predložitve dokazov Sodišču le poenostavi postopek pravne preiskave.
Having regard to the provisions of the Statute (Article 40, paragraph 2) and Rules of Procedure (Article 93) of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), the possibility of submitting evidence to the ECJ can only facilitate the legal investigation process.
V nobenem primeru se ne sme razumeti kot oviranje, ker Sodišče samo po vložitvi zahtevka odloča, ali naj uporabi izpovedbo.
In no case can it be looked upon as interference, since the Court itself decides, after an application has been made, whether or not to make use of testimony.
V nasprotnem primeru bi bilo to enako kot dvom v pravilnost sodbe Sodišča.
Were this not so, it would be tantamount to questioning the soundness of the ECJ's judgment;
Dostop do vseh dokumentov brez izjeme, ki jih imajo institucije Skupnosti, omogoča, da je varuh človekovih pravic čim bolj obveščen in lahko zato predloži ustreznejša priporočila in tako učinkoviteje varuje posamezne državljane.
Access to all documents, without exception, in the possession of the Community institutions makes it possible to ensure that the Ombudsman is as fully informed as possible and hence in a position to make more appropriate recommendations, thereby protecting individual citizens more effectively.
Razen tega v nobenem primeru nima pravice razširjati vsebine teh dokumentov.
Moreover, under no circumstances is the Ombudsman entitled to divulge the contents of those documents;
Izpovedba uradnikov v institucijah Skupnosti
Testimony given by officials of the Community institutions
V zvezi z izpovedbo uradnikov in drugih uslužbencev evropskih institucij v skladu z navodili njihovih uprav, besedilo zadevne določbe ogrozi ugled institucij Skupnosti, pri čemer se zdi, da nekaj prikrivajo, in se ne upošteva dejstvo, da so ali bi morali biti v službi državljanov.
As regards testimony given by officials and other servants of the European institutions pursuant to instructions from their administrations, the wording of the relevant provision risks undermining the authority of the Community institutions, creating the impression that they may have something to hide and neglecting the fact that they are, or should be, at the service of the citizens.
Za uradnike morajo veljati le ustrezni kadrovski predpisi;
Officials should be bound only by the relevant rules of the Staff Regulations;
Informacije v zvezi z dejstvi, ki kažejo na izvršitev kaznivega dejanja po kazenskem pravu
Information concerning facts indicating the commission of an offence under criminal law
Če varuh človekovih pravic razkrije dejstva, ki kažejo na izvršitev kaznivega dejanja po kazenskem pravu, lahko obvesti pristojne institucije Skupnosti ali celo predloži zadevo Evropskemu uradu za boj proti goljufijam, če to pomaga zagotoviti učinkovitejšo določitev odgovornosti in zagotavljanje pravnega varstva;
Where the Ombudsman uncovers facts indicating the commission of an offence under criminal law, there can be no arguable objection to the possibility of informing the Community institution responsible, or even bringing the matter to the attention of OLAF, in so far as this helps to ensure greater effectiveness in the attribution of responsibility and the administration of justice;
Sodelovanje na področju človekovih pravic
Cooperation in the field of human rights
Sodelovanje z institucijami, ki podpirajo temeljne pravice, mora biti samoumevno.
Cooperation with institutions upholding fundamental rights should be possible as a matter of course.