natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In June 2008, following a report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (rapporteur Ms Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI MEP), the European Parliament adopted a decision3 revising the Statute, with effect from 31 July 2008.The two most important changes strengthen the Ombudsman's powers of investigation.
Evropski parlament je po poročilu Odbora za ustavne zadeve (poročevalka poslanka Evropskega parlamenta Anneli JäätteeNmäki) junija 2008 sprejel sklep3 o spremembi Statuta z začetkom veljavnosti 31. julija 2008.Dve najpomembnejši spremembi krepita preiskovalne pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic.
They can no longer refuse to disclose documents on "duly substantiated grounds of secrecy".
Ti razkritja dokumentov zdaj ne morejo več zavrniti na podlagi „utemeljenih razlogov tajnosti“.
Second, EU officials who give evidence to the Ombudsman are
Drugič, uradnikom EU, ki varuhu
1.The Charter was originally proclaimed in December 2000 and signed and proclaimed again on 12 December 2007 prior to the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon on 13 December 2007, OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1.2.
1.Listina je bila najprej razglašena decembra 2000, podpisana in znova razglašena pa 12. decembra 2007 pred podpisom Lizbonske pogodbe 13. decembra 2007, UL 2007 C 303, str.
15.3.European Parliament Decision 2008/587 of 18 June 2008, amending Decision 94/262 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties, OJ 2008 L 189, p. 25.
15.3.Sklep Evropskega parlamenta 2008/587 z dne 18. junija 2008 o spremembi Sklepa 94/262 o pravilih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje funkcije varuha človekovih pravic, UL 2008 L 189, str. 25.
The European Ombudsman — Annual Report 2008 no longer required to speak "on behalf of and in accordance with instructions from their administrations".
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic — Letno poročilo 2008 posredujejo dokaze, ni več treba govoriti „v imenu svojih uprav in v skladu z njihovimi navodili“.
The provisions for the Ombudsman to maintain the confidentiality of documents and information are also clarified and strengthened.
Pojasnjene in okrepljene so bile tudi določbe o ohranjanju zaupnosti dokumentov in podatkov.
Finally, Article 5 of the Statute provides a basis for the Ombudsman to co-operate with institutions and bodies of Member States in charge of the promotion and protection of fundamental rights.
Nazadnje, s členom 5 Statuta je zagotovljena tudi podlaga za sodelovanje varuha človekovih pravic z institucijami in organi držav članic, ki so pristojni za spodbujanje in zaščito temeljnih pravic.
On 3 December 2008, the Ombudsman revised his implementing provisions in order to reflect the changes to the Statute and to take account of experience gained since 2004 when the provisions were last changed.
Varuh človekovih pravic je 3. decembra 2008 spremenil svoje izvedbene določbe, tako da so v njih izražene spremembe Statuta in upoštevane izkušnje, pridobljene od leta 2004, ko so bile določbe nazadnje spremenjene.
The new implementing provisions came into force on 1 January 2009.
Nove izvedbene določbe so začele veljati 1. januarja 2009.
They are intended to maintain and strengthen the trust of both complainants and the institutions in the Ombudsman's inquiries.
Njihov namen je ohranjati in krepiti zaupanje pritožnikov in institucij v preiskave varuha človekovih pravic.
In particular: — the complainant can be confident that: (i) he or she can see all the material which the institution concerned chooses to send to the Ombudsman as part of its opinion on the complaint, or in reply to further inquiries and (ii) the Ombudsman has full access to all the information and documents that he considers relevant to the inquiry; — the institutions can be confident that, when the Ombudsman asks for documents or information additional to those supplied in the institution's opinion and replies to further inquiries, or when he inspects the file, neither the public nor the complainant will have access to any information or documents that the institution identifies as confidential. 
Zlasti: — pritožnik je lahko prepričan: (i) da lahko vidi vse gradivo, ki ga zadevna institucija pošlje varuhu človekovih pravic kot del mnenja o pritožbi ali kot odgovor na dodatne preiskave, in (ii) da ima varuh človekovih pravic popoln dostop do vseh podatkov in dokumentov, ki se mu zdijo pomembni za preiskavo; — institucije so lahko prepričane, da niti javnost niti pritožnik ne bosta imela dostopa do informacij ali dokumentov, ki jih institucija označi za zaupne, kadar varuh človekovih pravic zaprosi za dodatne dokumente ali podatke poleg tistih, ki so priloženi mnenju in odgovorom na dodatne preiskave. 
The Statute of the Ombudsman and the implementing provisions are available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
Statut varuha človekovih pravic in izvedbene določbe so na voljo na spletni strani Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
The implementing provisions are also available in hard copy from the Ombudsman's Office.
Izvedbene določbe so na voljo tudi v tiskani obliki na uradu Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
Complaints and own-initiative inquiries
■■Pritožbe in preiskave na lastno pobudo
Article 195 EC empowers the Ombudsman to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State.
S členom 195 Pogodbe ES je varuh človekovih pravic pooblaščen za sprejemanje pritožb državljanov Unije ali fizičnih ali pravnih oseb s prebivališčem ali registriranim sedežem v eni od držav članic.
The Ombudsman also has the power to open inquiries on his own initiative.
Varuh človekovih pravic lahko tudi sproži preiskave na lastno pobudo.
Using the own-initiative power, the Ombudsman may investigate a possible case of maladministration brought to his attention by a person who is not entitled to make a complaint.
To možnost lahko uporabi za preiskavo mogočega primera nepravilnosti, na katerega ga opozori oseba, ki nima pravice vložiti pritožbo.
The Ombudsman's practice in such cases is to give the person concerned the same procedural opportunities during the inquiry as if the matter had been dealt with as a complaint.
Praksa varuha človekovih pravic v takih primerih je, da zadevni osebi med preiskavo omogoči enake postopkovne možnosti, kot če bi se zadeva obravnavala kot pritožba.
The Ombudsman normally approaches on a case-by-case basis the question of whether to use the own-initiative power in this way.
Varuh človekovih pravic se o sprožitvi preiskave na lastno pobudo po navadi odloča za vsak primer posebej.
Two such own-ini-tiative inquiries were opened in 2008.
Leta 2008 sta bili sproženi dve taki preiskavi na lastno pobudo.
Memorandum of Understanding with the European Investment Bank (E)
Memorandum o soglasju z Evropsko investicijsko banko (E)
In his Annual Report for 2006, the Ombudsman declared that, subject to possible future resource constraints, he envisaged using the own-initiative power whenever the only reason not to inquire into a complaint alleging maladministration by the EIB in its lending activities outside the EU (external lending) is that the complainant is not a citizen or resident of the Union.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v letnem poročilu za leto 2006 zapisal, da ob upoštevanju mogočih omejitev virov v prihodnosti predvideva tudi uporabo možnosti preiskave na lastno pobudo, kadar je dejstvo, da pritožnik ni državljan ali prebivalec Unije, edini razlog, zakaj se pritožba o domnevni nepravilnosti Evropske investicijske banke (EiB) pri njenih posojilih zunaj EU (zunanjih posojilih) ne preišče.
In its Resolution of 25 October 2007, the European Parliament welcomed the Ombudsman's declaration of intent and invited him to consider concluding a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the EIB.In December 2007, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the EIB, inviting discussions on the drafting of an MoU.
Evropski parlament je v resoluciji z dne 25. oktobra 2007 pozdravil izjavo varuha človekovih pravic o nameri in ga pozval, naj razmisli o sklenitvi memoranduma o soglasju z EiB. Varuh človekovih pravic je decembra 2007 predsedniku EiB poslal dopis in ga v njem povabil k razpravi o pripravi osnutka memoranduma o soglasju.
The MoU4 was signed by the Ombudsman and the EIB
V njem je predvideno, da se bo zaščita zainteresiranih strani razširila
4.Memorandum of Understanding between the European Ombudsman and the European Investment Bank concerning information on the Bank's policies, standards and procedures and the handling of complaints, including complaints from non-citizens and non-residents of the European Union, OJ 2008 C 244, p. 1.
4.Memorandum o soglasju med Evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic in Evropsko investicijsko banko glede obveščanja o politikah, standardih in postopkih Evropske investicijske banke ter reševanju pritožb, vključno s pritožbami nedržavljanov in nerezidentov Evropske unije, UL 2008 C 244, str. 1.
It foresees that stakeholder protection will be extended to those who are not citizens or residents of the EU or who do not have a registered office in the EU (see further below section 4.1). 
Pristojnosti in postopki varuha človekovih pravic tudi na tiste, ki niso državljani ali prebivalci EU ali nimajo registriranega sedeža v EU (glej razdelek 4.1 v nadaljevanju). 
The Ombudsman may also use his own-initiative power to tackle what appears to be a systemic problem in the institutions.
Varuh človekovih pravic pa lahko sprožitev preiskave na lastno pobudo uporabi tudi za reševanje domnevnih sistemskih težav v institucijah.
He did this on one occasion in 2008:
To je v letu 2008 naredil enkrat:
Own-initiative inquiry intothe Early Warning System
Preiskava sistema zgodnjega opozarjanja na lastno pobudo
The Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry into the European Commission's "Early Warning System" (EWS).
Varuh človekovih pravic je na lastno pobudo sprožil preiskavo o „sistemu zgodnjega opozarjanja“ Evropske komisije.
This computerised information system lists companies, NGOs, associations or other parties which, according to the Commission, are deemed to pose a threat to the EU's financial interests.
Ta računalniški sistem sestavlja seznam podjetij, nevladnih organizacij, združenj ali drugih strank, za katere se po mnenju Komisije domneva, da pomenijo tveganje za finančne interese EU.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that it is very important that the Commission should make every effort to protect the EU's financial interests, he insists that concerned parties must be treated fairly and with due respect to the fundamental legal principle of the presumption of innocence.The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to provide details of the number of stakeholders included in the EWS, as well as of the legal basis for the various EWS warning categories.
Čeprav varuh človekovih pravic priznava, da je zelo pomembno, da Komisija naredi vse za zaščito finančnih interesov EU, vztraja, naj se zadevne stranke pravično obravnavajo in naj se spoštuje temeljno pravno načelo o domnevi nedolžnosti.Varuh človekovih pravic je zato Komisijo zaprosil, naj navede podrobnosti o številu zainteresiranih strani, ki so vključene v sistem zgodnjega opozarjanja, in pravni podlagi za različne kategorije za opozarjanje v sistemu zgodnjega opozarjanja.
He also asked the Commission to clarify its information policy towards concerned parties and to explain the available appeals mechanisms against a listing in the EWS.OI/3/2008/FOR 
Komisijo je pozval tudi k razjasnitvi njene politike obveščanja zadevnih strank in pojasnilu, kateri pritožbeni mehanizmi so na voljo proti vključitvi v sistem zgodnjega obveščanja.OI/3/2008/FOR 
The following own-initiative inquiry was closed in 2008:
V letu 2008 je bila končana naslednja preiskava na lastno pobudo:
Own-initiative inquiry into the timeliness of payments by the Commission
Preiskava na lastno pobudo o pravočasnosti plačil Komisije
In December 2007, the Ombudsman launched his second ever inquiry into the timeliness of payments by the Commission.
Varuh človekovih pravic je decembra 2007 sprožil drugo preiskavo o pravočasnosti plačil Komisije.
This revealed that late payment continues to constitute a serious problem.
Ta je pokazala, da zamude pri plačilu ostajajo resna težava.
While the Ombudsman commended the Commission for the measures already taken to reduce payment delays, he called on it to make further improvements, especially regarding more vulnerable contractors, such as individual citizens and small and medium-sized companies and organisations.
Varuh človekovih pravic je Komisijo sicer pohvalil zaradi sprejetih ukrepov za zmanjšanje zamud pri plačilu, vendar jo je pozval k nadaljnjim izboljšavam, še posebno v zvezi z ranljivejšimi izvajalci, kot so državljani posamezniki ter mala in srednje velika podjetja in organizacije.
The Ombudsman announced that he would carry out a new investigation in early 2009.OI/5/2007/GG 
Varuh človekovih pravic je najavil, da bo novo preiskavo izvedel v začetku leta 2009.OI/5/2007/GG 
The Ombudsman's mandate
Pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic
Article 195 EC empowers the Ombudsman to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
Varuh človekovih pravic je s členom 195 ES pooblaščen za sprejemanje pritožb o nepravilnostih pri delu institucij in organov Skupnosti, razen Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišča prve stopnje v njunih pravosodnih funkcijah.
A complaint is therefore outside the mandate if it:(i) is not against a Community institution or body;(ii) is against the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role; or(iii) does not concern a possible instance of maladministration.Each of these items is further discussed below.
Pritožba torej ni v njegovi pristojnosti, če:(i) ni vložena proti instituciji ali organu Skupnosti;(ii) je vložena proti Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti ali Sodišču prve stopnje zaradi opravljanjanjune pravosodne funkcije; ali(iii) ne zadeva morebitne nepravilnosti.Vsaka od teh točk je podrobneje obrazložena v nadaljevanju.
Community institutions and bodies
■■Institucije in organi Skupnosti
The European Ombudsman's mandate covers the Community institutions and bodies.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je pristojen za institucije in organe Skupnosti.
The institutions are listed in Article 7 of the Treaty but there is no definition or authoritative list of Commu-
Institucije so navedene v členu 7 Pogodbe, ni pa opredelitve ali veljavnega seznama organov Skupnosti. Izraz
Complaints against public authorities of the Member States are not within the European Ombudsman's mandate, even if they concern matters falling within the scope of EU law.
Pritožbe proti javnim organom držav članic nisov pristojnosti Evropskega varuha človekovihpravic, tudi če se nanašajo na zadeve s področjazakonodaje EU.
Many such complaints are within the mandate of national and regional ombudsmen in the European Network of Ombudsmen (see further below section 3.6).
Veliko takih pritožb je v pristojnosti nacionalnih in regionalnih varuhov iz evropske mreže varuhov človekovih pravic (glej razdelek 3.6 spodaj).
Complaints that were not against a Community institution or body
Pritožbe, ki niso bile vložene proti instituciji ali organu Skupnosti
A Dutch citizen complained that he had to pay a monthly sum of Eur 14 to transfer money by means of internet banking from his French bank account to his Dutch bank account.
Nizozemski državljan se je pritožil, da mora vsak mesec plačati znesek v višini 14 eur za prenos denarja s spletnimi bančnimi storitvami s svojega francoskega računa na nizozemski bančni račun.
As the complaint was against a French bank, it was outside the European Ombudsman's mandate.
Ker je bila pritožba vložena proti francoski banki, ni bila v pristojnosti evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
The Ombudsman informed the complainant about Regulation (EC) No 2560/2001, which aims to eliminate price differences between cross-border and national payments.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pritožnika obvestil o Uredbi (ES) št. 2560/2001, katere cilj je odpraviti cenovne razlike med čezmejnimi in notranjimi plačili.
The Ombudsman also provided the link to the European Commission's website on this subject.
Varuh človekovih pravic je navedel tudi povezavo do spletne strani Evropske komisije, ki se ukvarja s to temo.
Finally, he informed the complainant that, as the case might involve an infringement of Community law, the complainant could consider contacting the Commission directly.
Pritožnika je še obvestil, naj razmisli o tem, da bi se obrnil neposredno na Komisijo, saj primer morda vključuje kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti. Zaupni primer 
A complainant turned to the European Ombudsman concerning problems he had encountered with his pension rights in Liechtenstein.
Pritožnik se je obrnil na Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic v zvezi s težavami, ki jih je imel glede pravic iz pokojninskega zavarovanja v Lihtenštajnu.
These problems related to the fact that, although he had worked in Liechtenstein, he had been living in Austria.
Težave so bile povezane z dejstvom, da je živel v Avstriji, delal pa v Lihtenštajnu.
He alleged that the Liechtenstein government was violating Community law on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community.
Trdil je, da vlada Lihtenštajna krši zakonodajo Skupnosti o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti.
Since the complaint did not concern a Community institution or body, the Ombudsman was not entitled to deal with it.
Ker pritožba ni bila povezana z institucijo ali organom Skupnosti, varuh človekovih pravic ni bil pristojen za njeno obravnavo.
The complainant was advised to submit a complaint to the European Free Trade Association Surveillance Authority. 505/2008/TJ 
Pritožniku je svetoval, naj vloži pritožbo pri nadzornem organu Evropskega združenja za prosto trgovino (Efta). 505/2008/TJ 
A complainant contacted the Ombudsman, arguing that the European Parliament's plenary sessions in Strasbourg are a waste of money and should be stopped.
Pritožnik se je obrnil na varuha človekovih pravic in trdil, da so plenarna zasedanja Evropskega parlamenta v Strasbourgu zgolj zapravljanje denarja in bi jih bilo treba ukiniti.
The Ombudsman explained that the decision as to where to hold plenary sessions is taken exclusively by the Member States.
Varuh človekovih pravic je razložil, da odločitev o kraju plenarnih zasedanj sprejemajo izključno države članice.
He pointed out that the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament might be able to deal with the complainant's grievance. 2759/2008/DH 
Poudaril je tudi, da bo pritožbo morda lahko obravnaval Odbor za peticije Evropskega parlamenta. 2759/2008/DH 
The Ombudsman's mandate and procedures
Pristojnosti in postopki varuha človekovih pravic
The courts acting in their judicial role
■■Sodišča v svojih pravosodnih funkcijah
The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints against the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
Varuh človekovih pravic ne more preiskovati pritožb, vloženih proti Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti ali Sodišču prve stopnje zaradi opravljanja njune pravosodne funkcije.
The following case helps to illustrate this point.
To lahko pomaga ponazoriti naslednji primer.
Complaint against the European Court of Justice (E) acting in its judicial role
Pritožba proti Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti (Sodišče ES), ki je delovalo v svoji pravosodni funkciji
A German citizen complained to the Ombudsman, referring to a judgment of the EC� concerning the abrogation of the "home owner allowance" (Eigenheimzulage) in Germany.
Nemški državljan se je pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic in se pri tem skliceval na sodbo Sodišča ES v zvezi z odpravo „subvencije za stanovanja“ (Eigenheimzulage) v Nemčiji.
The EC� had ruled that Germany was infringing Community law by excluding the possibility that this allowance also be granted to persons subject to full taxation in Germany but living in another Member State.
Sodišče ES je odločilo, da Nemčija krši zakonodajo Skupnosti, ker je izključila možnost, da se ta subvencija podeli tudi osebam, ki so v Nemčiji zavezane obdavčitvi po polni stopnji, vendar živijo v drugi državi članici.
The complainant contested the way this judgment was being implemented in Germany.
Pritožnik se je pritožil nad načinom, na katerega se ta sodba izvaja v Nemčiji.
The complainant appeared to claim that it was the EC�'s task to include implementing measures in its judgment.
Zdelo se je, da pritožnik trdi, da je naloga Sodišča ES, v sodbo vključiti izvedbene ukrepe.
The complaint thus concerned the EC�'s judicial activity and was not within the Ombudsman's mandate.The complainant was informed that he could turn to the Committee on Petitions of the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag) or lodge a complaint with the European Commission (which had brought the action against Germany before the EC�).376/2008/CD 
Pritožba se je tako nanašala na sodno dejavnost Sodišča ES in ni bila v pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic.Pritožnik je bil obveščen, da se lahko obrne na Odbor za peticije nemškega zveznega parlamenta (Bundestag) ali vloži pritožbo pri Evropski komisiji (ki je pri Sodišču ES vložila tožbo proti Nemčiji).376/2008/CD 
Maladministration
■■ Nepravilnosti
The European Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that maladministration is a broad concept and that good administration requires, among other things, compliance with legal rules
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic vztrajno zagovarja mnenje, da je nepravilnost širok pojem in da je treba za dobro upravljanje med drugim spoštovati zakonska določila in načela, med katerimi
Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Nepravilnosti se pojavijo, kadar javni organ ne ukrepa v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki gazavezuje.
and principles, including fundamental rights.
so tudi temeljne pravice.
However, the principles of good administration go further, requiring the institutions and bodies not only to respect their legal obligations, but also to be service-minded and to ensure that members of the public are properly treated and enjoy their rights fully.
Načela dobrega upravljanja pa gredo še dlje ter od institucij in organov zahtevajo ne le spoštovanje zakonskih obveznosti, ampak tudi vestnost pri delu ter ustrezno ravnanje s posamezniki in polno spoštovanje njihovih pravic.
Findings of maladministration by the Ombudsman do not therefore automatically imply that there is illegal behaviour that could be sanctioned by a court5.In response to a call from the European Parliament for a clear definition of maladministration, the Ombudsman offered the following definition in his Annual Report 1997:Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.In 1998, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming this definition.
Ugotovitev varuha človekovih pravic o nepravilnosti sama po sebi ne pomeni nezakonitega ravnanja, ki bi ga bilo mogoče sodno kaznovati.5Varuh človekovih pravic je v odgovor na poziv Evropskega parlamenta, naj jasno opredeli nepravilnosti, v letnem poročilu za leto 1997 navedel naslednjo opredelitev:„Nepravilnosti se pojavijo, kadar javni organ ne ukrepa v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki ga zave-zuje“.Evropski parlament je leta 1998 sprejel resolucijo, ki odobrava to opredelitev.
An exchange of correspondence between the Ombudsman and the Commission during 1999 made clear that the Commission has also agreed to the definition.There are limits to the concept of maladministration.
Dopisovanje med varuhom človekovih pravic in Komisijo v letu 1999 je pokazalo, da se z opredelitvijo strinja tudi Komisija.Pojem nepravilnosti ima omejen obseg.