natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman considered that the complaint against the decision of the Committee on Petitions did not concern possible maladministration, because the work of that Committee is part of the political activity of the European Parliament.
Varuh je menil, da pritožba zoper odločitev odbora za peticije ni vsebovala morebitnih nepravilnosti, saj je delo tega odbora del politične dejavnosti Evropskega parlamenta.
As regards the Commission, the Ombudsman considered that the position it had taken appeared to be reasonable and that there were no grounds, therefore, for an inquiry.
V zvezi s Komisijo je Varuh menil, da je bilo njeno stališče primerno in da zato ni podlage za preiskavo.
Of the 13 533 complaints registered from the beginning of the activity of the Ombudsman, 17% originated from Germany, 14% from Spain, 13% from France, 10% from Italy and 7% from the UK.
Od 13.533 pritožb, evidentiranih od začetka dejavnosti Varuha jih je 17 odstotkov izviralo iz Nemčije, 14 odstotkov iz Španije, 13 odstotkov iz Francije, 10 odstotkov iz Italije in 7 odstotkov iz Velike Britanije.
A full analysis of the geographical origin of complaints registered in 2003 is provided in Annex A, Statistics.
Popolna analiza geografskega porekla prejetih pritožb v letu 2003 je prikazana v prilogi A v poglavju Statistika.
During 2003, the process of examining complaints to see if they are within the mandate, meet the criteria of admissibility and provide grounds to open an inquiry was completed in 95% of the cases.
V letu 2003 se je postopek preverjanja pritožb zaradi ugotavljanja, če so v pristojnosti Varuha, če izpolnjujejo merilo dopustnosti in imajo podlago, da se začne preiskava, zaključil v 95 odstotkov.
Of all the complaints examined, 25% appeared to be within the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Od vseh preverjenih pritožb jih je bilo 25 odstotkov s področja pristojnosti Varuha.
Of these, 338 met the criteria of admissibility, but 90 did not appear to provide grounds for an inquiry.
Od teh jih je 338 izpolnjevalo merilo dopustnosti, 90 pa jih ni imelo podlage za preiskavo.
Inquiries were therefore begun in 248 cases.
Preiskave so se tako začele v 248 primerih.
Most of the complaints that led to an inquiry were against the European Commission (66%).
Večina pritožb, ki jim je sledila preiskava, je bila zoper Evropsko komisij o (66 odstotkov).
As the Commission is the main Community organ that makes decisions having a direct impact on citizens, it is normal that it should be the principal object of citizens’ complaints.
Glede na to, da je Komisij a v Skupnosti glavni organ, ki sprejema odločitve z neposrednim vplivom na državljane, ni neobičajno, da je glavni predmet pritožb državljanov.
ADVICE TO CONTACT OTHER BODIES ANDTRANSFERS
PREDLOG NASLOVITVE NA DRUGE ORGANEINPREUSMERITVE
During 2003, advice was given in 1289 cases, most of which involved issues of Community law.
V letu 2003 je tako svetoval v 1.289 zadevah, večinoma v primerih, ki so zadevali zakonodajo Skupnosti.
In 616 cases, the complainant was advised to take the complaint to a national or regional Ombudsman or similar body.
V 616 primerih je predlagal pritožniku, da pritožbo naslovi na nacionalnega ali regionalnega Varuha ali podoben organ.
The Ombudsman advised 143 complainants to petition the European Parliament and, additionally, six complaints were transferred to the European Parliament, with the consent of the complainant, to be dealt with as petitions, seven cases were transferred to the European Commission and 25 cases were transferred to a national or regional ombudsman.
Varuh je 143 pritožnikom predlagal, da naslovijo peticij o na Evropski parlament, dodatno je bilo šest pritožb s soglasjem pritožnika preusmerjenih na Evropski parlament, da jih obravnava kot peticije, sedem primerov je bilo preusmerjenih na Evropsko komisij o in 25 na nacionalne in regionalne ombudsmane.
In 189 cases, the advice was to contact the European Commission.
V 189 primerih je predlagal, da se pritožbe naslovi na Evropsko komisijo.
This figure includes some cases in which a complaint against the Commission was declared inadmissible because appropriate administrative approaches had not been made to the Commission.
Številka vključuje nekaj primerov, v katerih je bila pritožba zoper Komisjo označena za nedopustno, ker v razmerju do Komisij e niso bili izvedeni ustrezni administrativni pristopi do institucij in organov.
In 341 cases, the complainant was advised to contact other bodies.
V 341 primerih je pritožniku predlagal, da naslovi pritožbo na druge organe.
Example of a case transferred to another institution or body
Primer, ki je bil preusmerjen na drugo institucijo ali organ
Since the complaint was not against a Community institution or body, the European Ombudsman could not deal with it.
Glede na to, da pritožba ni bila zoper institucijo ali organ Skupnosti, je Evropski varuh ni mogel obravnavati.
He therefore transferred the case to the Italian banking ombudsman, an institution that deals with disputes between banks and their clients.
Zato je primer odstopil italijanskemu ombudsmanu za področje bančništva, torej instituciji, ki se ukvarja s spori med bankami in njihovimi strankami.
The complainant was informed accordingly.
Pritožnik je bil o tem obveščen.
In April 2003, the Italian banking Ombudsman informed the European Ombudsman that the case had been settled to the complainantʼs full satisfaction.
Aprila 2003 je italijanski ombudsman za področje bančništva obvestil Evropskega varuha, da je bil primer rešen v polno korist pritožnika.
The Ombudsman’s services and the Secretariat General agree the language or languages of the proceedings.
Službe Varuha in generalni sekretariat se dogovorita o jeziku ali jezikih v postopkih.
If a witness so requests in advance, the proceedings are conducted in the mother tongue of the witness.
Če priča vnaprej tako zahteva, se postopki opravljajo v materinem jeziku priče.
The questions and answers are recorded and transcribed by the Ombudsman’s services.
Vprašanja in odgovore snemajo in prepišejo službe Varuha.
The witness may propose linguistic corrections to the answers.
Priča lahko predlaga jezikovne popravke odgovorov.
If the witness wishes to correct or complete an answer, the revised answer and the reasons for it are set out in a separate document, which is annexed to the transcript.
Če priča želi popraviti ali dopolniti odgovor, se popravljen odgovor in razlog zanj pripravita kot ločen dokument, ki se priloži prepisu.
The signed transcript, including any annex, forms part of the Ombudsman’s fi le on the case.
Podpisan prepis, ki vključuje kakršno koli prilogo, je del spisa Varuha o primeru.
Point 6 also implies that the complainant receives a copy of the signed transcript and has the opportunity to make observations.
Točka 6 določa tudi, da pritožnik prejme kopij o podpisanega prepisa in ima možnost oblikovati pripombe.
During 2003, the Ombudsman’s power to hear witnesses was invoked in one case (1889/2002/GG).
V letu 2003 je Varuh pooblastilo, da zasliši pričo, uveljavil v enem primeru (1889/2002/GG).
During 2003, the Ombudsman’s powers to inspect fi les and documents relating to an inquiry were invoked in 10 cases.
V letu 2003 je Varuh v 10 primerih uveljavil pooblastilo, da pregleda spise in dokumente, ki se tičejo preiskave.
“The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information that he has requested of them and give him access to the fi les concerned.
“Institucije in organi Skupnosti morajo Varuhu posredovati vse informacije, ki jih od njih zahteva, in mu omogočiti dostop do zadevnih spisov.
They shall give access to other documents originating in a Member State a er having informed the Member State concerned.”
Dostop do drugih dokumentov, ki izhajajo iz države članice, pa dovolijo po tem, ko so zadevno državo članico s tem seznanili.”
The Ombudsman’s instructions to his staffconcerning inspection of documents include the following points:
Navodila Varuha svojemu osebju glede pregleda dokumentov vsebujejo sledeče točke:
The legal officer is not to sign any form of undertaking or any acknowledgement other than a simple list of the documents inspected or copied.
Pravni strokovni sodelavec ne podpisuje nobene izjave in nobenega drugega potrdila razen preprostega seznama dokumentov, ki jih preiskuje ali kopira.
If the services of the institution concerned make such a proposal, the legal officer transmits a copy of it to the Ombudsman.
Če službe zadevne institucij e to predlagajo, pravni strokovni sodelavec kopij o tega predloga posreduje Varuhu.
If the services of the institution concerned seek to prevent or impose unreasonable conditions on the inspection of any documents the legal officer is to inform them that this is considered as a refusal.
Če službe zadevne institucij e poskušajo preprečiti ali naložiti nerazumne pogoje ob pregledu katerega koli dokumenta, jih pravni strokovni sodelavec obvesti, da se to razume kot zavrnitev.
INQUIRIES BY THE OMBUDSMAN AND THEIROUTCOMES
PREISKAVE VARUHAIN NJIHOVI REZULTATI
Inquiries following a complaint
Preiskave po pritožbi
When the Ombudsman decides to start an inquiry into a complaint, the first step is to send the complaint and any annexes to the Community institution or body concerned for an opinion.
Ko se Varuh odloči začeti preiskavo pritožbe, najprej pošlje pritožbo in vse priloge zadevni institucij i ali organu Evropskih skupnosti, da poda mnenje.
When the opinion is received, it is sent to the complainant for observations.
Ko pridobi mnenje, ga pošlje pritožniku, da poda pripombe.
In some cases, the institution or body itself takes steps to se le the case to the satisfaction of the complainant.
V nekaterih primerih institucij a in organ sama od sebe ukrepata v smeri rešitve primera v korist pritožnika.
If the opinion and observations show this to be so, the case is then closed as “se led by the institution”.
Če mnenje in pritožbe pokažejo, da je temu tako, se primer zaključi kot “rešen s strani institucije”.
In some other cases, the complainant decides to drop the complaint and the fi le is closed for this reason.
V nekaterih drugih primerih se pritožnik odloči umakniti pritožbo in se zato spis zaključi.
If the complaint is neither se led by the institution nor dropped by the complainant, the Ombudsman continues his inquiries.
Če pritožba ni rešena s strani institucij e niti umaknjena s strani pritožnika, Varuh nadaljuje s svojo preiskavo.
If the inquiries reveal no instance of maladministration, the complainant and the institution or body are informed accordingly and the case is closed.
Če preiskave ne pokažejo nepravilnosti, se o tem ustrezno obvesti pritožnika in institucij o ali organ in primer se zaključi.
Friendly solutions and compensation
Sporazumne rešitve in nadomestila
Mediation can lead to a friendly solution, which satisfies both the complainant and the institution complained against.
Mediacija lahko vodi k sporazumni rešitvi, ki zadovolji tako pritožnika kot institucijo, zoper katero se pritožuje.
When the European Ombudsman’s inquiries reveal an instance of maladministration, he seeks a friendly solution if possible.
Ko preiskava Evropskega varuha odkrije nepravilnosti, skuša varuh najti sporazumno rešitev.
In some cases, this involves suggesting to the Institution or body concerned that it make an off er of compensation to the complainant.
V nekaterih primerih to lahko vsebuje predlog zadevni institucij i ali organu, da pritožniku ponudi nadomestilo.
Any such off er from the institution is made ex gratia: that is, without admission of legal liability and without creating a precedent.
Vsaka taka ponudba s strani institucij e je narejena ex gratia: to je, brez sprejetja zakonske odgovornosti in brez oblikovanja precedensa.
Critical remarks, dra recommendations and special reports
Kritične pripombe, osnutki priporočil in posebna poročila
If a friendly solution is not possible, or if the search for a friendly solution is unsuccessful, the Ombudsman either closes the fi le with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned, or makes a dra recommendation.
Če sporazumna rešitev ni mogoča ali če je iskanje sporazumne rešitve neuspešno, Varuh bodisi zapre spis s kritično pripombo pristojni institucij i ali organu bodisi pripravi osnutek priporočila.
A critical remark is considered appropriate for cases in which it is no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, the maladministration appears to have no general implications and no follow-up action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
Kritična pripomba je primerna za primere, ko pristojna institucij a ne more več odpraviti nepravilnosti, če nepravilnost nima splošnega pomena in če ni videti potrebe po nadaljnjem ukrepanju Varuha.
Responding to a suggestion made by the European Parliament in dealing with the Report on the activities of the Ombudsman for the year 2000, the Ombudsman established a register of critical remarks made from the beginning of 2002 and informed the Community institutions and bodies of his intention periodically to request information about any follow-up action taken by the institution or body itself.
Kot odgovor predlogu Evropskega parlamenta pri obravnavanju poročila o dejavnostih Varuha za leto 2000 je Varuh vzpostavil register kritičnih pripomb, ki jih je podal od začetka leta 2002. Varuh je hkrati obvestil institucij e in organe Skupnosti o nameri, da občasno zahteva pojasnila o nadaljnjih ukrepih same institucij e ali organa.
In January 2003, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to inform him of any follow up given to 21 of the critical remarks made in 2002, in relation to which he had not already received information from the Commission.
Januarja 2003 je Varuh zaprosil Komisijo, da ga obvesti o vsakem nadaljnjem ukrepu v zvezi z enaindvajsetimi kritičnimi pripombami, ki jih je pripravil leta 2002 in glede katerih s strani Komisij e še ni dobil nobene informacije.
In its reply of 26 March 2003, the Commission expressed its regrets for the
V svojem odgovoru 26. marca 2003 je Komisij a izrazila obžalovanje zaradi zamude ali neodgovarjanja, ki sta bila vzrok za 15 od teh kritičnih pripomb.
In accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the institution or body must send a detailed opinion within three months.
V skladu s členom 3(6) Statuta Varuha mora institucij a ali organ v času treh mesecev posredovati podrobno mnenje.
If a Community institution or body fails to respond satisfactorily to a dra recommendation, Article 3 (7) provides for the Ombudsman to send a report to the European Parliament and to the institution or body concerned.
Če se institucij a ali organ Skupnosti nezadovoljivo odzove na osnutek priporočila, člen 3(7) Varuhu določa, da pošlje poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu in pristojni institucij i ali organu.
Own initiative inquiries
Preiskave na lastno pobudo
Article 195 EC also provides the Ombudsman with power to open inquiries on his own initiative.
Člen 195 ES daje Varuhu pooblastilo, da začenja preiskave na lastno pobudo.
Such inquiries are mainly used to tackle possible systemic problems, o en based on a series of complaints.
Take preiskave, ki se v glavnem uporabljajo za reševanje možnih sistemskih napak, pogosto temeljijo na številnih pritožbah.
One such inquiry (OI/2/2002/IJH – see chapter 3 below) led the Commission to adopt a new procedure in 2003 to give unsuccessful bidders in its tender procedures time to challenge contract award decisions through legal proceedings.
Ena takih preiskav (OI/2/2002/IJH - glej 3. poglavje spodaj) je Komisij o privedla do tega, da je leta 2003 sprejela nov postopek, da bi neuspešnim ponudnikov v svojih razpisnih postopkih dala čas za izpodbijanje sklepov o oddaji naročila v pravnem postopku.
The new procedure is outlined in a Commission Communication dated 3 July 2003.4
Nov postopek je opisan v Sporočilu Komisij e z dne 3. julij a 2003.4
Three new owninitiative inquiries of this kind were launched in 2003.
Leta 2003 so bile začete tri nove preiskave na lastno pobudo.
OI/1/2003 deals with the internal dispute resolution procedures available to national experts who are seconded to the Commission.
OI/1/2003 se ukvarja s postopkom reševanja notranjih sporov, ki je na razpolago nacionalnim strokovnjakom, dodeljenih Komisij i.
OI/3/2003 concerns the integration of persons with disabilities, in particular as regards the measures implemented by the European Commission to ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.
OI/3/2003 zadeva vključevanje invalidov, posebno kar se tiče ukrepov Evropske komisije, da se v odnosu teh oseb in institucij e prepreči diskriminacij a.
OI/5/2003 concerns the activity of the Commission to promote the good administration of the European Schools.
OI/5/2003 zadeva dejavnost Komisij e za spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja evropskih šol.
In addition, the owninitiative power can be used to investigate issues raised by complaints from persons who are not citizen or residents.
Poleg tega se možnost lastne pobude lahko uporabi za preiskovanje vprašanj, ki jih odpirajo pritožbe posameznikov, ki niso državljani ali prebivalci.
Two such inquiries were opened in 2003, one of which was also closed during the year.
Dve taki preiskavi sta bili začeti leta 2003, ena od teh je bila med letom že zaključena.
Example of the use of the owninitiative power
Primer preiskave na lastno pobudo
A citizen of Cyprus applied to enter a competition organised by the European Personnel Selection Offi ce (EPSO) to establish a reserve list of Cypriot assistant administrators.
Državljan Cipra se je prijavil na izbirni postopek, ki ga je organiziral Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO), da bi se oblikoval rezervni seznam ciprskih pomožnih uradnikov.
He complained to the European Ombudsman that technical problems with EPSOʼs server meant that applicants could not register electronically up to the latest time announced in the notice of competition.
Evropskemu Varuhu se je pritožil, da se zaradi tehničnih težav s strežnikom EPSO-a kandidati niso mogli elektronsko prijaviti do zadnjega roka, objavljenega v javnem razpisu.
Since the complainant was neither a citizen nor a resident of the Union, the Ombudsman could not deal with the complaint as such.
Glede na to, da pritožnik ni bil niti državljan niti prebivalec Unije, Varuh ni mogel obravnavati pritožbe kot take.
However, given the seriousness of the issues raised, the Ombudsman decided to open an owninitiative inquiry.
Vendar pa je Varuh zaradi resnosti odprtega vprašanja začel preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
EPSO argued that applicants had enough time to register and, in view of possible technical difficulties, had been expressly instructed not to wait until the last few days before the closing date.
EPSO je zastopal stališče, da so kandidati imeli dovolj časa za prijavo in da so prav zaradi možnih tehničnih težav izrecno svetovali, da naj se ne čaka na zadnje dni pred zaključkom roka.
It reviewed the case, however, after the Ombudsman intervened, and invited the complainant to the preselection tests.
Po posredovanju Varuha so primer vseeno obravnavali in povabili pritožnika na predizbirno testiranje.
Communication from the Commission. COM(2003)395 final (03.07.03).
Sporočilo Komisije.
Procedure for informing candidates and tenderers, a er a contract has been awarded and before the actual contract has been signed, in respect of public procurement contracts awarded by the Commission under Article 105 of the Financial Regulation.
Postopek o obveščanju kandidatov in ponudnikov po oddaji naročila in pred podpisom dejanskega naročila, z upoštevanjem oddaje javnih naročil s strani Komisij e na podlagi člena 105 Finančne uredbe.
During the course of the year, 48 cases were se led by the institution or body itself.
Med letom je bilo 48 primerov rešenih s strani same institucij e ali organa.
Of this number, 34 were cases in which the Ombudsman’s intervention succeeded in obtaining a reply to unanswered correspondence (see the 1998 Annual Report section 2.9 for further details of the procedure used in such cases).
34 od teh je bilo primerov, kjer je posredovanje Varuha prispevalo k odgovoru na neodgovorjeno korespondenco (o nadaljnjih podrobnostih postopkov, ki se uporabljajo v takih primerih, glej Letno poročilo 1998, oddelek 2.9).
Five cases were dropped by the complainant.
V petih primerih so pritožniki umaknili pritožbo.
In 87 cases, the Ombudsman’s inquiries revealed no instance of maladministration.
V 87 primerih preiskave Varuha niso pokazale nikakršnih nepravilnosti.
A critical remark was addressed to the institution or body concerned in 20 cases.
Varuh je kritične pripombe naslovil na pristojne institucij e ali organe v 20 primerih.
A friendly solution was reached in four cases.
Sporazumna rešitev je bila dosežena v štirih primerih.
Five dra recommendations were accepted by the institutions in 2003 and two cases were closed following a special report made to the European Parliament in 2002 (see section 3.6).
Institucij e so v letu 2003 sprejele pet osnutkov priporočil, dva primera sta se zaključila po posebnem poročilu Evropskega parlamenta leta 2002 (glej oddelek 3.6).
7 Annexes
7 Priloge
CASES WHERE NO MALADMINISTRATION WASFOUND
PRIMERI, KJER NI BILO UGOTOVLJENIHNEPRAVILNOSTI
3.1.1 The European Parliament
3.1.1 Evropski parlament
ALLEGED LACK OF SERVICE-MINDEDNESS IN RECRUITMENT
DOMNEVNO POMANJKANJE PROFESIONALNEGA PRISTOPA V ZAPOSLOVANJU
Decision on complaint 406/2003/(PB)IJH (Confidential) against the European Parliament
Sklep o pritožbi 406/2003/(PB)IJH (zaupno) zoper Evropski parlament
THE COMPLAINT
PRITOŽBA
The complaint was classified as confidential, at the complainant’s request, in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
Pritožba je bila v skladu s členom 2(3) statuta Varuha, na zahtevo pritožnika opredeljena kot zaupna.
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
Long before the closing date, the complainant submi ed to the European Parliament an application for a high post, which was published in a Recruitment Notice.
Pritožnik je veliko časa pred iztekom roka pri Evropskemu parlamentu vložil prijavo za višje delovno mesto, objavljeno v objavi za zaposlitev.
The complainant received an answer from Parliament saying that the Advisory Commi ee would not proceed with his application since his fi le could not be assessed due to lack of documentary proof of, among other things, his qualifications, as required by the recruitment notice.
Pritožnik je od Parlamenta dobil odgovor, da svetovalni odbor njegove prijave ne bo obravnaval, ker njegov spis zaradi pomanjkljive dokumentacije ni mogel biti ocenjen, med drugim tudi glede kvalifi kacij , zahtevanih v objavi za zaposlitev.
The complainant accepts that Parliament has certain rules pertaining to applications.
Pritožnik se strinja, da Parlament postavlja določena pravila glede prijav.
Nevertheless, he is of the opinion that Parliament should have informed him that they would have needed more documentation.
Kljub temu pa meni, da bi ga Parlament moral obvestiti, da potrebujejo več dokumentov.
In substance, the complainant alleges that the European Parliament, in dealing with his application for recruitment under a particular Contract Notice, has not been service-minded enough, since it did not contact him to request more documentation.
Temeljni očitek pritožnika je, da Evropski parlament v obravnavanju njegove prijave za zaposlitev na podlagi posebnega obvestila o zaposlitvi ni pokazal dovolj profesionalnega pristopa, ker ga ni pozval k predložitvi dodatnih dokumentov.
The complainant claims that his application should be reopened.
Pritožnik zahteva, da se njegovo prijavo ponovno obravnava.
THE INQUIRY
PREISKAVA
The European Parliament’s opinion
Stališče Evropskega parlamenta
The opinion of the European Parliament was, in summary, as follows:
Stališče Evropskega parlamenta je v povzetku naslednje: