natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman considered that he needed further information in order to deal with the complaint.
Glede na pritožnikove pripombe je Varuh menil, da za obravnavo pritožbe potrebuje nadaljnje informacije.
In its reply, Parliament made the following comments:
Da bi Parlament lahko podal pripombe, mu je Varuh posredoval kopij o pritožnikovih
Decisions following an inquiry email was employed in the freelance unit secretariat and regularly exchanged e-mails with contractors.
Sklepi preiskav pripomb in od njega zahteval pojasnilo, zakaj napačna informacij a v elektronski pošti z dne 2. julij a 2002 ni bila popravljena takoj, ko so odgovorni uradniki za to zvedeli.
She had however not been named in the tender documentation.
Zadeva je bila rešena šele 12. avgusta 2002.
Whilst the translation service of Parliament was clearly responsible for the institution’s wri en communications, this email had not in any way constituted an official document.
Uradnica, ki je poslala zmotno elektronsko pošto, je bila zaposlena v sekretariatu enote za zunanje prevajalce in je redno izmenjavala elektronsko pošto s pogodbeniki.
The freelance unit of the Planning Division was a purely administrative service.
Vendar v razpisni dokumentaciji ni bila omenjena.
Its staff, mostly C-grade, exchanged on average fi y e-mails per day with contractors.
Njihovo osebje, v glavnem kategorij e C, je izmenjalo s pogodbeniki dnevno v povprečju 50 elektronskih pisem.
To ensure the linguistic revision of these purely administrative communications with service providers, a team of at least two fully-fledged translators for each of the 11, soon to be 20, official languages would be necessary.
Da bi zagotovili jezikovno revizijo teh vsebinsko zgolj administrativnih komunikacij s ponudniki storitev, bi potrebovali ekipo vsaj dveh polno kvalificiranih prevajalcev, za vsakega od 11, kmalu pa 20 uradnih jezikov.
Parliament awarded contracts by public tender, a highly formal procedure the legislation for which set out clear rules as to the types of communication possible.
Parlament je dodelil naročilo na podlagi postopka za oddajo javnega naročila, strogo formaliziranega postopka, za katerega veljajo jasna pravila, tudi glede dovoljenih načinov komuniciranja.
It was unfortunate if this formality was seen by the complainant as creating a negative climate but the officials concerned were under an obligation to respect the legislation in force.
Obžalovanja vredno je, da je pritožnik to formalnost dojel kot ustvarjanje negativnega ozračja, toda zadevni uradniki so morali spoštovati veljavno zakonodajo.
The relevant opinion of the Legal Service had been communicated to the Secretary-General marked as confidential and not to be made public, as was standard practice for opinions of Parliament’s Legal Service.
Ustrezno mnenje pravne službe je bilo generalnemu sekretariatu posredovano kot zaupno in kot je to običajno za mnenja pravne službe Parlamenta, s prepovedjo objave.
Under the public procurement rules, Parliament could furthermore not give information concerning a tender to any party other than the tenderer itself.
V skladu s pravili o javnih naročilih Parlament ni mogel dati informacij e glede javnega razpisa nobeni drugi stranki razen samemu natečajnemu ponudniku.
In its opinion, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his contribution to clarifying the problem and noted that it had forwarded Parliament’s opinion to its members, encouraging them to ask personally for information concerning the tender.
V svojem mnenju se je pritožnik zahvalil Varuhu za njegov prispevek k razjasnitvi problema in dodal, da je mnenje Parlamenta posredoval naprej svojim članom ter jih vzpodbudil, da osebno zahtevajo informacij e v zvezi z javnim razpisom.
According to the complainant, one of its members that had already requested information but not received an answer intended to submit the ma er to the Ombudsman.
Pritožnik je izjavil, da je eden od njegovih članov, ki so informacij e že zahtevali, vendar odgovora še niso dobili, zadevo nameraval posredovati Varuhu.
The complainant added that there was definitely a communication and transparency problem masked by bureaucracy and “formalities”.
Dodal je, da problem komuniciranja in transparentnosti zagotovo obstaja, vendar je prikrit z birokracijo in “formalnostmi”.
Failure to explain reasons for cancelling call for tenders
Opustitev pojasnitve razlogov za preklic javnega razpisa
1.1 At the beginning of 2002, the European Parliament published a call for tenders for the translation of verbatim reports of Parliament’s sessions into Greek.
Pet od ponudnikov, ki so se odzvali na javni razpis, je bilo članov združenja grških prevajalskih družb. Parlament je ponudnike 2. julij a 2002 obvestil,
On 2 July 2002, the tenderers were informed by Parliament that the call for tenders had been cancelled “due to technical reasons”.
Sklepi preiskav da je bil javni razpis preklican zaradi “tehničnih razlogov”.
In its complaint lodged at the beginning of September 2002, the complainant alleged that Parliament had failed to inform it about the reasons for cancelling the tender.
V svoji pritožbi, vloženi na začetku septembra 2002, je pritožnik trdil, da ga Parlament ni obvestil o razlogih za preklic razpisa.
1.2 In its opinion, the European Parliament explained that the information contained in the email of 2 July 2002 had been erroneous and that the call for tenders had in fact not been cancelled.
1.2 Evropski parlament je v svojem mnenju pojasnil, da so bile informacij e v elektronski pošti z dne 2. julij a 2002 napačne in da javni razpis dejansko ni bil preklican.
Parliament had informed bidders for the relevant call for tenders on 26 September 2002 that the contract award notice had been published on 13 September 2002 and had apologised for any inconvenience the erroneous email sent on 2 July 2002 could have caused.
Parlament je 26. septembra 2002 obvestil ponudnike zadevnega javnega razpisa, da je bilo Sporočilo o oddaji naročila objavljeno 13. septembra 2002 in se opravičil za morebitne neprijetnosti, ki jih je povzročila elektronska pošta z dne 2. julij a 2002.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant’s allegation was based on the assumption that the call for tenders had been cancelled.
1.3 Varuh navaja, da so trditve pritožnika izhajale iz domneve, da je bil javni razpis preklican.
Given that the tender was in fact not cancelled, this allegation has thus become devoid of purpose, and there is no need further to inquire into it.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da javni razpis dejansko ni bil preklican, je ta trditev postala nesmiselna in zato ni razloga za nadaljnje poizvedbe.
2.1 The complainant considers that the tone of the email by which the EP replied, on 3 July 2002, to inquiries by some of its members as to the reasons of the purported cancellation of the call for tenders was inappropriate and created an impression of arrogant behaviour.
2.1 Pritožnik meni, da je bil ton elektronske pošte, s katero je EP 3. julij a 2002 odgovoril na poizvedovanja nekaterih članov pritožnika o razlogih za preklic javnega razpisa, neprimeren in je dajal vtis arogantnega obnašanja.
Decisions following an inquiry was put to him at a particularly busy time, and his instructions were therefore necessarily rather terse.
2.2 Parlament poudarja, da je bil vodja oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta na plenarnem zasedanju v Strasbourgu, ko ga je član osebja vprašal, kako naj odgovori pritožniku.
The resulting email was not dra ed by himself but was an interpretation of his instructions dra ed in English by a non-native speaker.
Vprašanje mu je bilo zastavljeno ob zanj zelo neugodnem času, zato so bila tudi njegova navodila bolj kratka.
There was no intention to off end or to appear arrogant.
Njen namen nikakor ni bil žaliti oziroma delovati arogantno.
2.3 In its observations, the complainant points out that other le ers with a similar tone were sent by the staff of the head of the EP’s Translation Planning Division.
2.3 V svojem mnenju pritožnik poudarja, da je osebje vodje oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja EP tudi ostalim poslalo pisma v podobnem tonu.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that these le ers have not been submi ed to him.
Vendar Varuh navaja, da ta pisma njemu niso bila posredovana.
His inquiry is therefore limited to the email of 3 July 2002.
Zato se njegova preiskava omejuje na elektronsko pošto z dne 3. julij a 2002.
This message that was sent in reply to requests for clarification submi ed by certain members of the complainant gives the impression that its sender considered that Parliament was under no obligation to provide the information that had been requested.
To sporočilo, poslano kot odgovor na zahtevo po pojasnitvi, ki so jo vložili določeni člani pritožnika, vzbuja vtis, da je pošiljatelj menil, da Parlament ni bil obvezan priskrbeti zahtevane informacije.
However, no reasons whatsoever were given for this position, and the reply is limited to just one terse sentence.
Toda za takšno stališče niso bili dani nikakršni razlogi, odgovor pa je omejen na en kratek stavek.
The Ombudsman considers that it is therefore understandable that the complainant and its members took offence at this e-mail.
Varuh meni, da je zato razumljivo, da so bil pritožnik in njegovi člani zaradi elektronske pošte užaljeni.
The Ombudsman notes that the message was sent in the name of the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division, and both the la er and Mrs W. appear to have received a copy of this message.
Varuh navaja, da je bilo sporočilo poslano v imenu vodje oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta, očitno pa je, da je poleg slednjega kopij o sporočila prejela tudi ga. W.
If there was indeed, as Parliament stresses in its opinion, no intention to off end or to appear arrogant on the part of the official concerned, there would thus have been ample time subsequently to correct the impression this message was bound to create.
Če zadevni uradnik zares ni imel namena žaliti ali delovati arogantno kot zatrjuje Parlament, je bilo na voljo dovolj časa, da se naknadno popravi vtis, ki ga je ustvarilo sporočilo.
However, no such correction appears to have been undertaken or even a empted.
Vendar ni očitno, da bi se opravičili ali vsaj poskušali se opravičiti.
2.5 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that by sending and failing to correct the email message of 3 July 2002, Parliament failed to comply with the obligation to be courteous in relations with the public.
2.5 V teh okoliščinah Varuh meni, da Parlament, ko je 3. julij a 2002 poslal elektronsko pošto, ki je ni popravil, ni ravnal v skladu z obvezostjo vljudnega obnašanja v odnosih z javnostjo.
This is an instance of maladministration, and a critical remark will be made in this respect.
To je primer nepravilnosti, zato bo podana kritična pripomba.
Further issues
Nadaljnje zadeve
3.1 In its observations on Parliament’s opinion, the complainant pointed out that it wished to be informed about the nature of the “technical” problem that had occurred and the relevant opinion of the Legal Service.
3.1 V svojih pripombah glede mnenja Parlamenta je pritožnik poudaril, da je želel biti obveščen o naravi “tehnične” težave, ki se je zgodila in o ustreznem mnenju pravne službe.
The complainant further argued that one of its members that had been excluded from the said tender had asked to be informed about the reasons for exclusion but had not yet received the answer that the Legal Service had promised.
Nadalje je trdil, da je eden od njegovih članov, ki je bil prav tako izključen iz tega razpisa, vprašal po razlogih za njegovo izključitev, vendar še ni prejel obljubljenega odgovora pravne službe.
The Code is available on the Ombudsman’s website (h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Kodeks je na voljo na spletni strani varuha človekovih pravic (h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
It is good administrative practice that officials should be courteous in relations with the public.57
3.2 Varuh je zato pripombe pritožnika posredoval Parlamentu, ki je v svojem odgovoru podal nadaljnje informacij e o zadevi.
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Parlament, ko je 3. julij a 2002 poslal elektronsko pošto, ki je ni popravil, ni ravnal v skladu z obveznostjo vljudnega obnašanja v odnosih z javnostjo.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
To je primer nepravilnosti.
3.4.2 The Council of the European Union
3.4.2 Svet Evropske unij e
Decision on complaint 648/2002/IJH against the Council of the European Union
Sklep o pritožbi 648/2002/IJH, zoper Svet Evropske unij e
Regulation 1049/200158, for access to a number of documents concerned with the modernisation of EU competition procedures.
Pritožnica je 28. januarja 2002 v skladu z Uredbo 1049/200158 pri Svetu vložila dodatno potrdilno prošnjo za dostop do številnih dokumentov v zvezi s posodobitvijo konkurenčnih postopkov EU.
On 18 March 2002, the Council replied to the confirmatory application,
Svet je 18. marca 2002 na prošnjo odgovoril, odobril pa je le delni dostop.
The Council justified its decision to refuse access to certain parts of the documents by reference to
Svet je svojo odločitev za zavrnitev dostopa do določenih delov dokumentov utemeljil s sklicevanjem
The Council reasoned its conclusion as follows:
Svet je svoj zaključek pojasnil tako:
“In the context of preliminary discussions and negotiations within the Council’s preparatory bodies, the possibility for delegations to express their views freely even on politically sensitive issues constitutes an essential pre-condition for the Council’s capacity to find compromise solutions and achieve progress on difficult questions.
“V kontekstu predhodne razprave in pogajanj v pripravljalnih organih Sveta je možnost, da delegacij e prosto izrazijo svoje poglede tudi o občutljivih političnih zadevah, bistveni predpogoj za sposobnost Sveta, da poišče sporazumne rešitve in doseže napredek pri občutljivih vprašanjih.
The release, at the present stage, of those parts of the documents which make it possible to identify individual delegations’ positions on particular subject ma ers which are still under discussion would jeopardise this capacity, as it could considerably reduce the flexibility of delegations to reconsider their respective positions in the light of the arguments exchanged in the debate.
Na sedanji stopnji bi objava tistih delov dokumentov, ki omogočajo identifi kacij o stališč posameznih delegacijo določenih zadevah v obravnavi, ogrozila to sposobnost, saj bi lahko občutno zmanjšala prilagodljivost delegacij , da ponovno razmislijo o svojih stališčih, glede na izmenjane argumente v razpravi.
In the Council’s view, this could seriously undermine its decision-making process.”
To bi po mnenju Sveta resno spodkopalo postopek sprejemanja odločitev.”
Available on the Ombudsman’s website (h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Kodeks je na voljo na spletni strani Evropskega varuha (h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
“Access to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an institution, which relates to a ma er where the decision has not been taken by the institution, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.”
“Zavrne se dostop do dokumenta, ki ga je institucij a sestavila za notranjo uporabo, oziroma ga je dobila od druge institucij e in se nanaša na zadevo, o kateri mora odločiti institucij a, če bi razkritje dokumenta resno ogrozilo postopek sprejemanja odločitev institucije, razen če za razkritje ne obstaja pomembnejši interes splošne javnosti.”
Decisions following an inquiry however, the Council has, in most cases, deleted any position taken by an identified delegation in its entirety.
V svoji pritožbi Varuhu je pritožnica sprejela razlago Sveta, zakaj prikriva identiteto delegacij , ne glede na morebiten prihodnji argument, da bi morale biti identitete delegacij in njihovi argumenti razkriti.
The complainant argues that the deletions made by the Council are excessive and have deprived some of the documents of meaning.
Po navedbah pritožnice je Svet v večini primerov izbrisal vsakršno stališče, ki ga je zavzela znana delegacij a v celoti.
In particular, contrary to what is stated in the Council’s reply, they fail to inform the reader of the majority of the arguments exchanged in the course of the discussions.
Pritožnica trdi, da so izbrisi Sveta preveliki in da so nekateri dokumenti zato izgubili svoj pomen. Še posebej, v nasprotju z navedbami Sveta v svojem odgovoru, bralca ne obvestijo o večini izmenjanih argumentov tekom razprave.
According to the complainant, the Council should disclose all the arguments, ideas and propositions contained in the documents, with the relevant delegation’s name blanked out if need be.
Po navedbah pritožnice bi moral Svet razkriti vse argumente, ideje in predloge, ki jih vsebujejo dokumenti, po potrebi pa prekriti ustrezna imena delegacij .
Moreover, the complainant points out that two of the documents to which she was given partial access are Commission working documents, submi ed to the Council Working Party on Competition, concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition.
Poleg tega pritožnica poudarja, da sta dva dokumenta, do katerih je dobila delni dostop, delovna dokumenta Komisije, posredovana delovni skupini za konkurenco v okviru Sveta, v zvezi s predlogom Komisij e za Uredbo Sveta o izvajanju konkurenčnih predpisov.
According to the complainant, the closing sections of both documents have been deleted in their entirety.
Po navedbah pritožnice sta bila zaključna dela obeh dokumentov izbrisana v celoti.
The complainant argues that if the Commission prepared these documents as general background to the proposal, the confidentiality of the Council’s discussions can have no relevance to their disclosure in full.
Pritožnica trdi, da zaupnost razprav ne more biti bistvena za njihovo razkritje v celoti, če je Komisij a te dokumente pripravila kot splošno podlago k predlogu.
On the other hand, if the documents were prepared a er the Council’s discussions began and in response to positions taken by one or more delegations, they should be disclosed nevertheless.
Po drugi strani pa bi dokumenti vseeno morali biti razkriti, če so bili pripravljeni po začetku razprave Sveta in v odgovoru do stališč ene ali več delegacij .
According to the complainant, sufficient legislative formality a aches to a published Commission proposal to warrant disclosure of the reasoning behind any subsequent Council-Commission dialogue.
Pritožnica navaja, da je objavljeni predlog Komisij e za odobritev razkritja pojasnil za vsak kasnejši dialog med Svetom in Komisij o zakonodajno dovolj formalen.
Once the public knows the content of the proposal, an understanding of the difficulties in carrying it through to enactment is important.
Ko javnost enkrat pozna vsebino predloga, je pomembno razumeti težave na poti do uzakonitve.
If a text emerges from the Council with unexplained changes of substance, public confidence in the end product will be undermined and suspicion will be cast on the Council’s methods.
Če besedilo z nepojasnjenimi spremembami vsebine prihaja od Sveta, bo zaupanje javnosti v končni rezultat spodkopano, pojavil pa se bo dvom v metode Sveta.
Finally, the complainant alleges that the Council’s online register of documents lacks the detail needed to reveal whether a particular document is likely to be of interest, leading to excessive requests for disclosure and a waste of time for both the Council and the applicant.
Pritožnica nazadnje navaja, da vsebuje spletni register dokumentov Sveta premalo podrobnosti, potrebnih za prikaz verjetnosti, ali bo določen dokument zanimiv.
As an example, the complainant mentions that all the working party reports in this case bear only the title of the Commission’s proposal.
To pa posledično predstavlja prekomerne zahteve po razkritju in izgubo časa za Svet in prosilca. Kot primer pritožnica navaja, da so v tem primeru imela vsa poročila delovnih skupin samo naslov predloga Komisije. e.
In summary, therefore, the complainant alleges that:
Zato pritožnica v povzetku navaja:
In granting only partial access, the Council has deleted more material than justified by its reasoning concerning the need to maintain confidentiality of individual delegations’ positions on particular subject ma ers which are still under discussion;
Svet je s tem, ko je zagotovil le delni dostop, izbrisal več materiala, kot je to upravičeno v obrazložitvi potrebe po ohranjanju zaupnosti stališč posameznih delegacij o zadevah, ki so še vedno v obravnavi;
(ii) The Council’s reasoning does not justify its deletions of material from certain Commission working documents;
(ii) Razlaga Sveta ne opraviči izbrisov materiala iz nekaterih delovnih dokumentov Komisije; e;
(iii) the Council’s online register of documents contains inadequate information.
(iii) Spletni register dokumentov Spleta vsebuje nezadostne informacije. e.
The complainant claims full, or greater, access to 13 documents: 12241/00, 10022/01, 13798/00, 13563/01, 5158/01, 12290/00, 12856/00, 13385/00, 5843/01, 6024/01, 6622/01, 6834/01, 7692/01.
Pritožnica zahteva popoln ali večji dostop do 13 dokumentov: 12241/00, 10022/01, 13798/00, 13563/01, 5158/01, 12290/00, 12856/00, 13385/00, 5843/01, 6024/01, 6622/01, 6834/01, 7692/01.
The Council’s opinion
Mnenje Sveta
In summary, the Council’s opinion made the following points:
Mnenje Sveta vsebuje v povzetku naslednje točke:
As regards the first allegation, the Council agrees in principle that documents relating to ongoing discussions on dra legislative acts should be as widely accessible as is possible and that one way to achieve this objective is to disclose most or all of the arguments which have been exchanged in the course of the discussions, while withholding only those parts of the documents which allow the identification of the delegations which defended those positions.
V zvezi s prvo trditvijo se Svet načelno strinja s tem, da bi morali biti kar najbolj dostopni tisti dokumenti, ki se nanašajo na še trajajoče razprave o osnutkih zakonodajnih aktov, in da je en način za dosego tega razkritje večine ali vseh v razpravi izmenjanih argumentov, medtem ko se ne objavi le dela tistih dokumentov, ki omogočajo identificiranje delegacij , ki so to stališče zastopale.
This gives the delegations concerned the necessary flexibility to alter their positions in the light of the ongoing discussion, which constitutes a pre-condition for achieving progress on difficult questions.
To daje zadevnim delegacij am potrebno prožnost, da lahko spremenijo svoja stališča v luči še trajajoče razprave, kar je predpogoj za doseganje napredka pri težkih vprašanjih.
The Council has followed this practice on a number of occasions since the entry into force of Regulation 1049/2001.
Svet je od začetka veljavnosti Uredbe 1049/2001 to storil že velikokrat.
However, the specific circumstances in this case justify a more cautious approach.
Vendar specifične okoliščine v tem primeru opravičujejo bolj previden pristop.
The proposal in question raises a number of extremely delicate and contentious issues which are still the subject of difficult negotiations within the Council at a political level.
Sporni predlog odpira veliko izjemno občutljivih in spornih zadev, ki so še vedno predmet težavnih pogajanj na politični ravni znotraj Sveta.