natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In his new complaint, the complainant thus in substance alleged that (1) the Commission had been negligent in not seeking reasons or explanations for the changes made by the Board and that (2) the changes that had been made should not have been allowed.
Pritožnik je v svoji novi pritožbi tako v bistvu trdil, da (1) je bila Komisij a malomarna, ker ni zahtevala razlogov ali pojasnil za spremembe, ki jih je opravil urad, in da (2) opravljene spremembe ne bi smele biti dovoljene.
The Commission’s opinion
UL C 205/553 z dne 25. julij a 1994.
As was explained in the Commission’s response to complaint 1574/2002/GG, the Commission’s main parameter leading to acceptance or rejection of a report, be it dra or final, was whether the terms of the contract had been observed.
Kot je Komisij a pojasnila v svojem odgovoru na pritožbo 1574/2002/GG, je njeno glavno merilo za sprejem ali zavrnitev osnutka poročila ali končnega poročila upoštevanje določil pogodbe.
This had been the case with the present contract.
Tako je bilo tudi pri tej pogodbi.
Wherever the Commission saw deficiencies in the scientific analysis of the results of the work carried out under the contract, appropriate comment would be made to and modification would be requested of the contractor.
Če Komisij a najde pomanjkljivosti pri znanstveni analizi rezultatov dela, opravljenega po pogodbi, pošlje pogodbeni stranki ustrezne pripombe in od nje zahteva spremembe.
However, this had not been the case for this contract either in the dra report or in the fi final report.
Vendar pa to pri tej pogodbi ni bilo potrebno niti pri osnutku poročila niti pri končnem poročilu.
If the contractor wished to alter conclusions resulting from the scientific analysis in its fi final report it should be and was entitled to do so.
Če pogodbena stranka želi spremeniti zaključke znanstvene analize v končnem poročilu, bi morala imeti in tudi je imela to pravico.
As regards contractual aspects, perusal of a copy of the contract and added annexes did not reveal any capacity for the Commission “to prevent what happened from occurring”78.
Kar se tiče pogodbenega vidika, ni vpogled v kopij o pogodbe in dodanih prilog razkril nobene možnosti, da bi Komisij a lahko “preprečila kasnejše dogodke”78.
As regards procedural aspects, it was not common but it was not unknown for a final report to differ from an associated dra final report, even though the la er had been accepted by the Commission.
Kar se tiče postopkovnega vidika, razlike med končnim poročilom in osnutkom končnega poročila res niso običajne, niso pa nemogoče, tudi ko je Komisij a osnutek končnega poročila že sprejela.
It was, a er all, the responsibility and duty of the contractor to deliver the final report in a form which it saw as appropriate.
Navsezadnje je odgovornost in dolžnost pogodbene stranke pripraviti končno poročilo v obliki, za katero meni, da je primerna.
The Commission did not wish to intervene in such a process.
Komisij a v takem procesu ni želela posredovati.
The Commission had no capacity to reject a final report because it considered it to be scientifically incorrect or for any other reason other than failure to comply with the conditions of the contract.
Komisij a je pristojna za zavrnitev končnega poročila samo, če določila pogodbe niso bila upoštevana. Tudi če Komisij a meni, da je poročilo znanstveno netočno, ali iz kakega drugega razloga poročila ne more zavrniti.
Otherwise, the lengthy supporting documents provided by the complainant referred to possible or purported interactions between various administrative or governmental bodies within Ireland over which the Commission had no influence, as well as to differences in interpretation of data between the complainant and the person who dra ed the ultimate final report and the report of the European Parliament, the resolutions of which were not binding upon the Commission.
Obsežni dodatni dokumenti, ki jih je posredoval pritožnik, omenjajo možne ali domnevne odnose med različnimi upravnimi ali vladnimi organi na Irskem, na katere Komisij a ni mogla vplivati, kot tudi razlike v interpretaciji podatkov med pritožnikom, avtorjem zadnjega končnega poročila in poročilom Evropskega parlamenta, katerega sklepi za Komisij o niso bili zavezujoči.
The Commission official in charge of the project had been informed by telephone on numerous occasions between May 1997 and September 1997 how the project had been interfered with.
Uradnik Komisije, odgovoren za projekt, je bil med majem 1997 in septembrom 1997 večkrat telefonsko obveščen o posegih v projekt. V pismu, ki ga je 3. novembra 199779 poslal temu uradniku, je pritožnik poudaril, da je odkril, da želi ministrstvo “prirediti končno poročilo pred njegovo objavo”.
In his le er of 11 August 2003, the complainant concluded by saying that he had originally sought an apology and assurances that the like would not happen again, but that he now wished to see the original dra final report published with an official explanation as to why this was being done. At the very least he was seeking to be exonerated for refusing to be a party to scientific censorship and to have his reputation restored.
Svoje pismo z dne 11. avgusta 2003 je pritožnik zaključil z izjavo, da je najprej želel opravičilo in zagotovilo, da se kaj takega ne bo ponovilo, vendar da zdaj želi objavo izvirnega osnutka končnega poročila skupaj z uradnim pojasnilom preteklih dogodkov Najmanj, kar želi, je njegova rehabilitacija, ker ni hotel sodelovati v znanstveni cenzuri, in povrnitev njegovega dobrega imena.
In his subsequent le er of 17 August 2003, however, the complainant explained that upon reflection he wished to await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiry first. first.
V kasnejšem pismu z dne 17. avgusta 2003 pa je pritožnik pojasnil, da želi po premisleku raje najprej počakati na rezultate preiskave pri Varuhu.
The reference here is to the text of complaint 1574/2002/GG.
Citat iz besedila pritožbe 1574/2002/GG.
A copy of this le er, which the complainant had obtained from the Commission further to a request for access to documents, was submi ed to the Ombudsman.
Kopij a tega pisma, ki ga je pritožnik dobil od Komisij e po svoji prošnji za dostop do dokumentov, je bila posredovana Varuhu.
Decisions following an inquiry documents were kept.
Službe Varuha so 8. oktobra 2003 pregledale spise Komisije.
That was why the fi le did not contain the dra final report that had been superseded by the final report.
Uradniki Komisije, odgovorni za zadevo, so pojasnili, da pri zaprtju zadeve o študij i niso bili ohranjeni vsi dokumenti, zato med spisi ni bilo osnutka končnega poročila, ki ga je nadomestilo končno poročilo.
The Commission officials also expressed the view that there must have been telephone conversations between the Commission and the contractor in which the Commission had asked for the submission of the final report.
Uradniki Komisij e so tudi izrazili prepričanje, da je med Komisij o in pogodbeno stranko gotovo prišlo do telefonskih razgovorov, v katerih je Komisij a pozvala k predložitvi končnega poročila.
However, no record of any such telephone conversation had been put on the file. file.
Vendar pa ni bilo v spisih zabeleženega nobenega tovrstnega telefonskega pogovora.
The Commission’s fi le inspected by the Ombudsman’s services contained a manuscript note that was dated “18 March” and that appears to have been drawn up by Mr O., who at that time worked in DG Fisheries.
V kartoteki Komisije, ki so jo pregledale službe Varuha, je bil tudi rokopis sporočila, datiranega “18. marca”, ki ga je očitno sestavil g.
Although this note does not explicitly indicate its subject-ma er, it appears likely that its contents refer to the drafi final report.80This notes gives the impression that its author considered that the results of that report were controversial.
O., ki je bil takrat zaposlen v GD za ribištvo. Čeprav to sporočilo obravnavane teme ne imenuje jasno, je verjetno, da se nanaša na osnutek končnega poročila.80
1.1 The present complaint concerns a contract (reference number PEM/93/06) between the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (an Irish authority) and the European Commission’s Directorate-General (DG) XIV (Fisheries) by which the Commission undertook to provide part of the cost of research into “The Physical Interaction between Grey Seals and Fishing Gear”.
1.1 Ta pritožba se nanaša na pogodbo (sklicna številka PEM/93/06), sklenjeno med irskim uradom za morsko ribištvo (irskim vladnim organom) in generalnim direktoratom (GD) XIV (ribištvo) Evropske komisije, s katero se je Komisij a zavezala, da bo deloma financirala raziskavo o “fizični interakciji med sivimi tjulnji in ribiško opremo”.
The complainant, who was working for the Board at the time and who was the responsible scientist on this research contract, alleges that the dra final report was substantially changed due to the interference of another Irish authority, the then Department of the Marine & Natural Resources, a er it had been accepted by the Commission. ANINQUIRY
Pritožnik, ki je bil takrat zaposlen na uradu in ki je bil odgovorni znanstvenik pri tej pogodbi o raziskavi, navaja, da je bil osnutek končnega poročila precej spremenjen zaradi vmešavanja drugega irskega vladnega organa, takratnega ministrstva za pomorstvo in naravne vire, potem ko je Komisij a ta osnutek že sprejela.
1.2 The European Ombudsman is unable to deal with complaints directed at institutions or bodies other than institutions or bodies of the European Community.
1.2 Evropski varuh ne more obravnavati pritožb zoper institucij e ali organe, ki niso institucij e ali organi Evropske skupnosti.
He would therefore be unable to deal with any complaints against Irish authorities.
Zato ne more obravnavati nobene pritožbe zoper irske upravne organe.
The present complaint, however, is directed at the Commission, and the present decision therefore only deals with the allegations against the European Commission.
Ta pritožba pa je usmerjena proti Komisij i, zato se ta sklep nanaša samo na trditve, usmerjene zoper Evropsko komisijo. o.
The allegation that the Commission should not have allowed the changes that were made by the Board
Trditev, da Komisij a uradu ne bi smela dovoliti spreminjanja
2.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission should not have allowed the changes that were made by the Board.
2.1 Pritožnik trdi, da Komisij a uradu ne bi smela dovoliti spreminjanja.
According to him, the main findings of the dra final report that had been submi ed in March 1997 were either deleted, negated or diluted in the final report that was submi ed by the Board in April 1998.
Po njegovih navedbah so bile glavne ugotovitve osnutka končnega poročila, predloženega marca 1997, v končnem poročilu, ki ga je urad predložil aprila 1998, izbrisane, zanikane ali pa omiljene.
2.2 The Commission takes the view that it is the contractor’s responsibility to deliver the final report in the form which it considers appropriate and that the Commission does not wish to intervene in such a process.
2.2 Komisij a je mnenja, da je pogodbena stranka odgovorna za pripravo končnega poročila v obliki, za katero meni, da je primerna, in da Komisij a v takem procesu ne želi posredovati.
While it might be argued that the Commission should not have accepted an ill-based and unjustified scientific conclusion, this could not be equated with maladministration.
Lahko bi sicer trdili, da Komisij a ne bi smela sprejeti neupravičenih znanstvenih zaključkov, temelječih na napačni osnovi, vendar tega ne gre enačiti z nepravilnostmi.
According to the Commission, perusal of the contract did not reveal a requirement such as the one alleged by the complainant.
Po navedbah Komisij e ni vpogled v pogodbo razkril nobene zahteve, kot jo zatrjuje pritožnik.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission does not dispute the complainant’s allegation that substantial changes were made to the dra final report that the Commission had accepted.
2.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da Komisij a ne oporeka pritožnikovi trditvi, da je bil osnutek končnega poročila, ki ga je Komisij a sprejela, precej spremenjen.
2.4 However, the Ombudsman considers, as he already set out in his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG, that the Commission’s view according to which it was the responsibility and duty of the contractor to deliver the final report in the form it saw as appropriate appears to be reasonable.
2.4 Vendar pa Varuh meni, kot že v sklepu o pritožbi 1574/2002/GG, da je razumno mnenje Komisije, po katerem je odgovornost in dolžnost pogodbene stranke, da pripravi končno poročilo v obliki, za katero meni, da je primerna.
The dra final report that had been submi ed on 4 March 1997 does indeed show the EU logo on its cover.
Osnutek končnega poročila, ki je bil predložen 4. marca 1997, ima res na naslovnici logo EU.
Alleged negligence on the part of the Commission by not seeking reasons or explanations for the changes made by the Board
Domnevna malomarnost Komisije, ker ni zahtevala razlogov ali pojasnil za spremembe, ki jih je opravil urad
3.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission was negligent in not seeking reasons or explanations for the changes made by the Board.
3.1 Pritožnik trdi, da je bila Komisij a malomarna, ker ni zahtevala razlogov ali pojasnil za spremembe, ki jih je opravil urad.
3.2 The Commission points out that its main parameter leading to acceptance or rejection of a report, be it dra or final, is whether the terms of the contract are observed.
3.2 Komisij a poudarja, da je njeno glavno merilo za sprejem ali zavrnitev osnutka poročila ali končnega poročila upoštevanje določil pogodbe.
This was the case with the present contract.
Tako je bilo tudi pri tej pogodbi.
Wherever the Commission sees deficiencies in the scientific analysis of the results of the work carried out during the contact, appropriate comment will be made to and modification will be requested of the contractor.
Če Komisij a najde pomanjkljivosti pri znanstveni analizi rezultatov opravljenega dela, ki ga določa pogodba, pošlje pogodbeni stranki ustrezne pripombe in od nje zahteva spremembe.
However, this was not the case for this contract either in the dra report or in the final report.
Vendar pa to pri tej pogodbi ni bilo potrebno niti pri osnutku poročila niti pri končnem poročilu.
If the contractor wished to alter conclusions resulting from the scientific analysis in its final report it should be and was entitled to do so.
Če pogodbena stranka želi spremeniti zaključke znanstvene analize v končnem poročilu, bi morala imeti in tudi je imela to pravico.
3.4 In the present case, the Commission examined and accepted the dra final report in April 1997.
3.4 V tem primeru je Komisij a aprila 1997 pregledala in sprejela osnutek končnega poročila.
In the light of the provisions of the relevant contract, this meant that the Board did not have to carry out any further work in relation to this study apart from submi ing a final cost statement.
V luči določil zadevne pogodbe je to pomenilo, da uradu ni bilo treba v zvezi s to študij o opraviti nobenega dodatnega dela razen predložitve končnega izračuna stroškov.
3.5 The Ombudsman considers that two different aspects can be distinguished in so far as the Commission’s obligation to act consistently is concerned.
3.5 Varuh je mnenja, da gre tu za dve različni zadevi, kar se tiče dolžnosti Komisij e glede doslednosti.
3.6 First, if the Commission considered that the contractor still had to provide the final report, one would have expected the Commission to have sent reminders to the Board asking for the final report to be submi ed.
3.6 Prvič, če je Komisij a menila, da mora pogodbena stranka predložiti končno poročilo, bi pričakovali, da bo Komisij a uradu poslala opomin s pozivom za predložitev končnega poročila.
However, the reminders the Commission did send only refer to the final cost statement, but not the report.
Vendar pa je opomin Komisij e omenjal samo končni izračun stroškov, ne pa tudi poročila.
This is all the more noteworthy since the (extended) deadline by which the final report should have been submi ed (end of February 1997), had long since expired.
To je še toliko bolj opazno, ker je (podaljšani) rok za predložitev končnega poročila (konec februarja 1997) že davno pretekel.
Even if there should have been (unrecorded) telephone conversations between the Commission and the contractor, the Ombudsman finds it hard to believe that the Commission should have failed to send a wri en reminder but simply waited until the final report was submi ed in April 1998, more than a year a er it had accepted the dra final report.
Tudi če je prišlo do (nezabeleženih) telefonskih razgovorov med Komisij o in pogodbeno stranko, Varuh težko verjame, da Komisij a ne bi poslala pisnega opomina, temveč preprosto čakala do predložitve končnega poročila aprila 1998, več kot leto po sprejemu osnutka končnega poročila.
3.7 Second, the Commission stresses that where it sees deficiencies in the scientific analysis of the results of the work carried out under a contract, these deficiencies will be pointed out to the contractor.
3.7 Drugič, Komisij a poudarja, da pogodbeno stranko opozori na pomanjkljivosti, ki jih najde pri znanstveni analizi rezultatov opravljenega dela, ki ga določa pogodba.
This means that the Commission examines a report to ascertain as to whether there are any such deficiencies and does not limit itself to rubber-stamping the report submi ed to it.
To pomeni, da Komisij a pregleda poročilo, da bi preverila, če so v njem kakšne pomanjkljivosti, in se ne omeji na preprosto potrjevanje predloženih poročil.
It further emerges from the evidence submi ed to the Ombudsman that the Commission was aware of the fact (a) that the contents of the dra final study were potentially controversial, (b) that the Irish Ministry wished to exercise editorial control over the final report before it was published, (c) that the final report was handed in more than a year a er the Commission had approved the dra fi final report and (d) that this final report contained substantial changes as compared to the dra final final report.
Nadalje je iz dokaznega gradiva, posredovanega Varuhu, razvidno, da se je Komisij a zavedala, (a) da je vsebina osnutka končne študij e morda sporna, (b) da je želelo irsko ministrstvo prirediti končno poročilo pred njegovo objavo, (c) da je bilo končno poročilo oddano več kot leto po tem, ko je Komisij a odobrila osnutek končnega poročila, in (d) da se je to končno poročilo precej razlikovalo od osnutka.
In the light of these circumstances, one would have expected that the Commission should have carefully examined the final report.
V luči teh okoliščin bi pričakovali, da bo Komisij a skrbno pregledala končno poročilo.
However, there is nothing to indicate that the Commission carried out any such examination a er it had received the final report in April 1998.
Vendar pa ni nobenih dokazov, da bi Komisij a po prejemu končnega poročila aprila 1998 opravila kakšen skrben pregled.
3.8 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that the the Commission should have examined the substantially modified final report submi ed to it in April 1998, more than a year a er it had accepted the dra final report.
3.8 V teh okoliščinah je Varuh mnenja, da bi morala Komisij a pregledati precej spremenjeno končno poročilo, ki ga je prejela aprila 1998, več kot leto po tem, ko je sprejela osnutek končnega poročila. Ker tega Komisij a ni storila, ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti ravnati dosledno.
By neglecting to do so, the Commission failed to comply with the requirement to act consistently.
To je bil primer nepravilnosti, zato Varuh spodaj podaja kritično pripombo.
This was an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman makes a critical remark below.
4.1 Pritožnik je v svoji pritožbi izrazil upanje, da bo prejel opravičilo za pretekle dogodke in zagotovilo, da bo storjeno vse, da se kaj takega ne bo več ponovilo.
4.1 In his complaint, the complainant expressed the hope that he would receive an apology for what had occurred and assurances that efforts would be made to ensure that the like would not happen again.
Sklepi preiskav pojasnilom preteklih dogodkov Najmanj, kar želi, je njegova rehabilitacija, ker ni hotel sodelovati v znanstveni cenzuri, in povrnitev njegovega dobrega imena.
4.2 In his le er of 17 August 2003, however, the complainant explained that upon reflection he wished to await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiry first. first.
4.2 V pismu z dne 17. avgusta 2003 pa je pritožnik pojasnil, da želi po premisleku raje najprej počakati na rezultate preiskave pri Varuhu.
4.3 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need to deal with the claims originally submi ed by the complainant.
4.3 V teh okoliščinah je Varuh mnenja, da ni potrebno obravnavati zahtev, ki jih je najprej posredoval pritožnik.
The Ombudsman takes the view that the the Commission should have examined the substantially modified ed fi final report submi ed to it in April 1998, more than a year a er it had accepted the dra final report.
Varuh je mnenja, da bi morala Komisij a pregledati precej spremenjeno končno poročilo, ki ga je prejela aprila 1998, več kot leto po tem, ko je sprejela osnutek končnega poročila.
By neglecting to do so, the Commission failed to comply with the requirement to act consistently.
Ker tega ni storila, Komisij a ni izpolnila zahteve po doslednem ravnanju.
Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ti vidiki pritožbe nanašajo na postopke v zvezi s določenimi dogodki v preteklosti, ni primerno prizadevanje za poravnavo v tej zadevi.
ALLEGED FAILURE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING TENDER SPECIFICATIONS
DOMNEVNA OPUSTITEV ODGOVORA NA VPRAŠANJA O RAZPISNIH POGOJIH
Decision on complaint 949/2003/IJH against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 949/2003/IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
In May 2003, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman on behalf of a company concerning the Commission’s call for tenders for translation services (AO2003), which was published on 17 April 2003.
Maja 2003 je bila v imenu nekega podjetja Varuhu podana pritožba v zvezi z javnim razpisom za prevajalske storitve (AO2003), ki ga je Komisij a objavila 17. aprila 2003.
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna dejstva naslednja:
The complainant found a certain lack of clarity in the tender specifications, as regards mainly the supporting documents to be submi ed with the tender, and the answers on the Commission’s FAQ
Pritožnik je menil, da so bila razpisni pogoji nejasni, predvsem pri navedbi zahtevanih dokumentov,
82 only spread greater confusion.
82 ki jih je treba poslati skupaj s ponudbo, spletna stran Komisij e z odgovori na pogosta vprašanja pa ustvarja samo še večjo zmedo.
Commission several e-mails asking for clarifications.
Pritožnik je svoji pritožbi priložil kopij e elektronskih pisem, ki jih je poslal Komisij i in v katerih je prosil za pojasnila.
He did not, however, receive any satisfactory answers.
Iz teh pisem je razvidno, da domnevne nejasnosti med razpisnimi pogoji in spletno stranjo FAQ zadevajo predvsem vprašanje overitve kopij zahtevanih dokumentov.
The complainant annexed to his complaint copies of the e-mails to the Commission in which he asked for clarification.
(i) da spletna stran FAQ Komisij e vsebuje nejasne informacije, ki so morda v nasprotju z razpisnimi pogoji;
In substance, the complainant alleges that:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju navedla:
That is, a web page giving answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
To je spletna stran z odgovori na pogosto zastavljena vprašanja (FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions).
In one of his e-mails to the Commission, the complainant had asked the following questions regarding sub-contractors: “For the purposes of the tender are we obliged to send certified/notarised details of every possible translator we could use for a particular project?
V enem od svojih elektronskih pisem Komisij i je pritožnika v zvezi s podizvajalci zanimalo naslednje: “Ali moramo za potrebe javnega razpisa poslati overjene podatke o vsakem prevajalcu, ki bi ga lahko dodelili določenemu projektu?