natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
!A er a German university complained about a payment dispute it was having with the Commission regarding a project under the Erasmus Programme, the Ombudsman contacted the Commission, which se4 led the case within two weeks.
Po pritožbi nemške univerze glede spora o plačilu, ki ga je imela s Komisijo zaradi projekta v okviru programa Erasmus, je varuh človekovih pravic navezal stik s Komisijo, in ta je primer rešila v dveh tednih.
The university’s e� orts to convince the
Prizadevanja univerze, da bi Komisijo prepričala o storjeni računski napaki, so bila neuspešna.
!The Commission reimbursed an outstanding sum of EUR 88 000 to a French consulting firm, which claimed that the institution had not repaid the entire eligible costs for its participation in an Information Society Technologies programme with China.
Komisija je povrnila neplačani znesek v višini 88 000 EUR francoskemu svetovalnemu podjetju, ki je trdilo, da mu ta institucij a ni povrnila vseh upravičenih stroškov za sodelovanje pri programu Tehnologije informacijske družbe s Kitajsko.
The Commission argued that the complainant had made a mistake in its cost statements.
Komisija je trdila, da je pritožnik napravil napako pri obračunu stroškov.
A er the Ombudsman intervened in the case, it agreed to pay the outstanding sum. (1471/2007/(CC)RT)
Po posredovanju varuha človekovih pravic v tem primeru je soglašala, da bo povrnila ta znesek. (1471/2007/(CC)RT)
If an inquiry leads to a finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman tries to achieve a friendly solution whenever possible.
Kadar varuh človekovih pravic pri preiskavi ugotovi nepravilnost, po možnosti vedno poskuša doseči sporazumno rešitev.
In some cases, a friendly solution can be achieved if the institution or body concerned o� ers compensation to the complainant.
V nekaterih primerih je sporazumna rešitev mogoča, če zadevna institucij a ali organ pritožniku ponudi odškodnino.
Any such o� er is made ex gratia, that is, without admission of legal liability and without creating a legal precedent.
V teh primerih gre za dejanja ex gratia: to pomeni brez dopustitve pravne odgovornosti in brez oblikovanja precedensa.
Five cases were closed during the year a er a friendly solution had been achieved.
Med letom je bilo po doseženi sporazumni rešitvi zaključenih pet primerov.
At the end of 2007, 31 proposals for friendly solutions were still under consideration.
Ob koncu leta 2007 je bilo 31 predlogov za sporazumno rešitev še vedno v postopku preučitve.
Among the cases involving a friendly solution in 2007 were the following:
Med primeri s sporazumno rešitvijo iz leta 2007 so bili naslednji.
!The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution and reduced the amount to be recovered from a contractor involved in a project in Lebanon.
Komisija je sprejela predlog varuha človekovih pravic za sporazumno rešitev in je znižala znesek, ki naj bi ga izterjala od pogodbenika, sodelujočega pri projektu v Libanonu.
This followed a complaint in which the contractor alleged unfair handling of the contract.
To se je zgodilo po pritožbi pogodbenika, ki je vsebovala trditve o nepoštenem obravnavanju pogodbe.
Although the Ombudsman did not find all of the complainant’s allegations to be justified, he concluded that the Commission’s decision to recover certain amounts constituted maladministration.
Čeprav po mnenju varuha človekovih pravic vse obtožbe pritožnika niso bile utemeljene, je ugotovil, da je odločitev Komisije o izterjavi nekaterih zneskov pomenila nepravilnost.
In the interest of taking steps to se4 le the ma4 er, the Commission agreed to reassess the file. (2577/2004/OV)
Komisija je pokazala zanimanje za rešitev te zadeve in soglašala, da bo ponovno ocenila ta spis. (2577/2004/OV)
!The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) repealed a contested decision a er the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution.
Po predlogu varuha človekovih pravic za sporazumno rešitev je Evropska agencij a za varnost v letalstvu (EASA) razveljavila izpodbijano odločitev.
The case concerned an EASA decision relating to the type-certification basis of certain aircra.
Primer je zadeval odločitev agencij e EASA glede osnove za certifi kacij o tipa nekega zrakoplova.
A er analysing the relevant legal provisions, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the decision had a su cient legal basis.
Po preučitvi ustreznih predpisov varuh človekovih pravic ni bil prepričan, da je imela ta odločitev zadostno pravno podlago.
EASA replied by saying that it had now been able to obtain the information needed to issue a type certificate and had therefore repealed the contested decision. (1103/2006/BU)
EASA je odgovorila, da ji je zdaj uspelo pridobiti potrebne informacij e za izdajo certifikata tipa, in je zato razveljavila izpodbijano odločitev. (1103/2006/BU)
!The former European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) accepted a friendly solution proposal by providing be4 er information to an unsuccessful tenderer about how his bid compared with that of the winning organisation.
Nekdanji Evropski center za spremljanje rasizma in ksenofobije (EUMC) je sprejel predlog za sporazumno rešitev in je neuspešnemu ponudniku zagotovil boljše informacij e o primerjavi njegove ponudbe s ponudbo zmagovalne organizacije.
The complainant had turned to the Ombudsman alleging that the EUMC had failed to give him satisfactory responses to his questions and had failed to apply transparent criteria.
Pritožnik se je obrnil na varuha človekovih pravic s trditvijo, da mu EUMC ni zagotovil zadovoljivih odgovorov na njegovo vprašanje in ni uporabil preglednih meril.
Following the inquiry, the complainant expressed his gratitude to the Ombudsman for his work and for providing a reliable safeguard for transparency in the EU.
Po preiskavi se je pritožnik varuhu za človekove pravice zahvalil za njegovo delo in zagotavljanje zanesljivega varstva preglednosti v EU. (1858/2005/BB in 1859/2005/BB)
If a friendly solution is not possible or if the search for such a solution is unsuccessful, the Ombudsman either closes the case with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned or makes a dra recommendation.
Če sporazumna rešitev ni mogoča ali če je iskanje takšne rešitve neuspešno, lahko varuh človekovih pravic zaključi primer s kritično pripombo zadevni institucij i ali organu ali pa sestavi osnutek priporočila.
A critical remark is normally made if (i) it is no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, (ii) the maladministration appears to have no general implications, and (iii) no followup action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
Kritično pripombo običajno sestavi, če (i) je prepozno, da bi zadevna institucij a nepravilnost odpravila, (ii) se zdi, da nepravilnost nima splošnih posledic, ali (iii) se zdi, da nadaljnji ukrepi varuha človekovih pravic niso potrebni.
A critical remark is also made if the Ombudsman considers that a drarecommendation would serve no useful purpose or that it does not seem appropriate to submit a special report to Parliament in a case where the institution or body concerned fails to accept a dra recommendation.
Varuh človekovih pravic sestavi kritično pripombo tudi, če meni, da osnutek priporočila ne bi bil uporaben za ta namen, ali če se mu ne zdi primerno, da bi Parlamentu predložil posebno poročilo, kadar zadevna institucij a ali organ ne sprejme osnutka priporočila.
A critical remark confirms to the complainant that his or her complaint is justified and indicates to the institution or body concerned what it has done wrong, so as to help it avoid maladministration in the future.
Kritična pripomba pritožniku potrdi, da je bila pritožba upravičena, institucij am ali organom pa pokaže, kje so ravnali napačno, da se lahko v prihodnje podobnim nepravilnostim izognejo.
In 2007, the Ombudsman closed 55 inquiries with critical remarks.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic 55 preiskav zaključil s kritičnimi pripombami. Na primer:
!The Ombudsman criticised the Commission for its failure to publish, in 2006 as required by law, its annual report 2005 on access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
POVZETEK da je pravočasna objava poročil ključni mehanizem odgovornosti do evropskih državljanov. (668/2007/MHZ)
!The Ombudsman issued two critical remarks against the European Personnel Selection O ce (EPSO) in two cases concerning the use of languages of the “new” Member States as opposed to those of the “old” Member States.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v dveh primerih izrekel kritični pripombi Evropskemu uradu za izbor osebja (EPSO) glede uporabe jezikov „novih“ držav članic v primerjavi z jeziki „starih“ držav članic.
This followed a complaint from a Polish association concerning recruitment tests.
Za to se je odločil na podlagi pritožbe poljskega združenja zaradi izbirnih preizkusov.
EPSO informed the Ombudsman that the language requirements for competitions had been changed in the meantime. (3114/2005/MHZ)
EPSO je varuha človekovih pravic obvestil, da so se jezikovne zahteve medtem spremenile. (3114/2005/MHZ)
!The Ombudsman criticised the Commission for failing to o� er valid reasons for not giving access to the annual accounting reports it receives from the Member States in relation to agricultural subsidies.
Varuh človekovih pravic je kritiziral Komisijo, ker ni utemeljeno obrazložila, zakaj ni omogočila dostopa do letnih računovodskih poročil, ki jih prejme od držav članic v zvezi s kmetijskimi subvencijami.
The Commission argued that the reports containing the information had been loaded onto a database and no longer existed as such.
Komisija je trdila, da so bila poročila z informacijami naložena v zbirko podatkov in kot taka ne obstajajo več.
The information requested by the complainant would require complex new programming of the database, it said.
Navedla je, da bi bilo za informacije, ki jih je zahteval pritožnik, potrebno zapleteno ponovno programiranje zbirke podatkov.
Although considering the Commission’s approach to be unsatisfactory, the Ombudsman did not pursue the ma4 er further since the legal issues could be examined by the Community legislator, from a general perspective, in the context of the announced reform of Regulation 1049/2001 on access to documents. (1693/2005/PB)
Čeprav je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da pristop Komisije ni zadovoljiv, je opustil nadaljnjo obravnavo te zadeve, ker bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti lahko preučil pravna vprašanja s splošnega vidika v okviru napovedane spremembe Uredbe 1049/2001 o dostopu do dokumentov. (1693/2005/PB)
It is important for the institutions and bodies to follow up critical remarks from the Ombudsman, taking action to resolve outstanding problems and thus to avoid maladministration in the future.
Za institucij e in organe je pomembno, da spremljajo kritične pripombe varuha človekovih pravic, si prizadevajo odpraviti nastale težave ter se tako izognejo nepravilnostim v prihodnje.
During 2007, the Ombudsman carried out a study of the followup undertaken by the institutions involved to all critical remarks and further remarks made in 2006.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic opravil študijo nadaljnjih ukrepov institucij , ki so leta 2006 prejele kritične pripombe in dodatne pripombe.
The study is available on the Ombudsman’s website (h4 p://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
Študija je na voljo na spletni strani evropskega varuha človekovih pravic (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
The Ombudsman envisages carrying out a similar exercise and informing the public of his findings on an annual basis.
Varuh človekovih pravic načrtuje letno opravljanje podobne študije in obveščanje javnosti o svojih ugotovitvah.
In cases where followup action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary, that is, where it is possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, or in cases where the maladministration is particularly serious, or has general implications, the Ombudsman normally makes a dra recommendation to the institution or body concerned.
V primerih, v katerih se zdijo nadaljnji ukrepi varuha človekovih pravic potrebni, torej kadar je še vedno mogoče, da zadevna institucij a nepravilnost odpravi, ali v primerih, v katerih so nepravilnosti še posebej resne oziroma imajo splošne posledice, varuh človekovih pravic običajno sestavi osnutek priporočila za to institucij o ali organ.
During 2007, eight dra recommendations were made.
Leta 2007 je bilo sestavljenih osem osnutkov priporočil.
In addition, seven dra recommendations from 2006 led to decisions in 2007.
Poleg tega je bilo leta 2007 s sklepom končanih še sedem osnutkov priporočil iz leta 2006.
Three cases were closed during the year when a drarecommendation was accepted by the institution.
Trije primeri so bili zaključeni med letom, ko je institucij a sprejela osnutek priporočila.
One case led to a Special Report to the European Parliament.
En primer je privedel do posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu.
Five cases were closed for other reasons.
Pet primerov je bilo zaključenih iz drugih razlogov.
At the end of 2007, eight dra recommendations were still under consideration, including one made in 2004 and one made in 2006.
Konec leta 2007 je bilo še vedno v obravnavi osem osnutkov priporočil, vključno z enim iz leta 2004 in enim iz leta 2006.
Among the drarecommendations made in 2007, one concerned public access to details of the payments received by MEPs.
Eden izmed osnutkov priporočil iz leta 2007 je zadeval javni dostop do podatkov o plačilih, ki so jih prejeli poslanci Evropskega parlamenta.
This followed a complaint from a Maltese journalist, whose request for details of certain MEPs’ allowances was rejected by the Parliament on grounds of data protection.
Temeljil je na pritožbi malteškega novinarja, čigar zahtevo po podatkih o nadomestilih nekaterih poslancev Evropskega parlamenta je Parlament zavrnil na podlagi varstva podatkov.
The la4 er’s detailed opinion on the Ombudsman’s dra recommendation in this case (3643/2005/(GK)WP) is due to be delivered by the end of February 2008.
Parlament naj bi podrobno mnenje o osnutku priporočila varuha človekovih pravic v tem primeru (3643/2005/(GK)WP) predložil do konca februarja 2008.
In another dra recommendation made in 2007, the Ombudsman urged the Commission to avoid in the future any unjustified restrictions with regard to the o cial languages in which proposals under a call for tender may be submi4 ed (259/2005/(PB)GG).
Varuh človekovih pravic je v drugem osnutku priporočila iz leta 2007 Komisijo pozval, naj se v prihodnje izogiba neutemeljenim omejitvam v zvezi z uradnimi jeziki, v katerih se lahko predložijo predlogi na podlagi javnih razpisov (259/2005/(PB)GG).
Given that this inquiry was still open at the end of 2007, it does not appear in Chapter 3 of the Report.
Ker je ta preiskava ob koncu leta 2007 še potekala, ni navedena v poglavju 3 tega poročila.
Among the dra recommendations accepted in 2007 were the following:
Leta 2007 so bili med drugim sprejeti naslednji osnutki priporočil.
!The Commission accepted a drarecommendation in which the Ombudsman called on it to correct inaccurate and misleading information contained in leaflets, posters and a video presentation on air passenger rights.
Komisija je sprejela osnutek priporočila, v katerem jo je varuh človekovih pravic pozval, naj popravi netočne in zavajajoče informacij e na letakih in plakatih ter v videopredstavitvi o pravicah letalskih potnikov.
Two airline associations had turned to the Ombudsman criticising the information provided by the Commission on the rights of travellers to compensation and assistance, in the event of denied boarding, cancellation of flights or
Dve združenji letalskih prevoznikov sta se obrnili na varuha človekovih pravic in kritizirali informacije, ki jih je Komisija dajala o pravicah potnikov do odškodnine in pomoči pri zavrnjenem vkrcanju, odpovedanih letih in velikih zamudah.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 long delays. A er the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Commission replaced the erroneous information material.
LETNO POROČILO 2007 priporočila je temeljil na pritožbi pokojnikovega sina.
More than four years a er the death of his father, the Commission had asked him to pay back EUR 1 747.
Komisija je od njega zahtevala, naj ji 1 747 EUR vrne več kot štiri leta po očetovi smrti.
It subsequently agreed to waive the reimbursement request. (1617/2005/(BB)JF)
Pozneje je privolila, da odstopi od zahteve po povračilu. (1617/2005/(BB)JF)
If a Community institution or body fails to respond satisfactorily to a drarecommendation, the Ombudsman may send a special report to the European Parliament.
Če institucij a ali organ Skupnosti na osnutek priporočila ne da zadovoljivega odgovora, lahko varuh človekovih pravic pošlje posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
This constitutes the Ombudsman’s ultimate weapon and is the last substantive step he takes in dealing with a case, since the adoption of a resolution and the exercise of Parliament’s powers are ma4 ers for the la4 er’s political judgment.
To je zadnje orožje varuha človekovih pravic in njegov zadnji možni ukrep pri obravnavi primera, saj sta sprejetje resolucije in izvajanje pooblastil Parlamenta stvar politične sodbe slednjega.
To give an example from 2007:
Primer iz leta 2007:
!The Ombudsman submi4 ed a special report to the European Parliament, criticising the Commission for not dealing with a complaint concerning the European Working Time Directive.
Varuh človekovih pravic je Evropskemu parlamentu predložil posebno poročilo, v katerem je kritiziral Komisijo, ker ni obravnavala pritožbe glede evropske direktive o delovnem času.
More than six years ago, a German doctor asked the Commission to open proceedings against Germany, alleging that it was infringing the Directive.
Nemški zdravnik je pred več kot šestimi leti zaprosil Komisijo, naj sproži postopek proti Nemčiji zaradi domnevne kršitev te direktive.
Despite pressure from the Ombudsman, the Commission refrained from taking action on the complaint, arguing that its proposals for amending the Directive are before the Community legislator.
Komisija se je kljub pritiskom varuha človekovih pravic vzdržala ukrepanja v zvezi s pritožbo, pri čemer je trdila, da so njeni predlogi za spremembo te direktive predloženi zakonodajalcu Skupnosti.
The Ombudsman insisted that this case raised an important issue of principle concerning the way the Commission deals with infringement complaints from citizens.
Varuh človekovih pravic je vztrajal, da je ta primer sprožil pomembno načelno vprašanje o načinu, na katerega Komisija obravnava pritožbe državljanov zaradi kršitev.
The Commission should either reject the complaint, or open infringement proceedings, he said.
Izjavil je, da bi morala Komisija zavrniti pritožbo ali pa sprožiti postopek zaradi kršitve. To, da se preprosto ne stori nič, ni v skladu z načeli dobrega upravljanja. (3453/2005/GG)
The Ombudsman makes use of his power to launch owninitiative inquiries in two main instances.
Varuh človekovih pravic uporabi svoje pooblastilo za sprožitev preiskave na lastno pobudo zlasti v dveh primerih.
Firstly, he may use it to investigate a possible case of maladministration when a complaint has been submi4 ed by a non-authorised person (i.e., when the complainant is not a citizen or resident of the Union or a legal person with a registered o ce in a Member State).
Prvič, uporabi ga lahko za preiskavo morebitnega primera nepravilnosti, če je pritožbo vložila nepooblaščena oseba (tj. pritožnik, ki ni državljan ali prebivalec Unije niti pravna oseba z registriranim sedežem v državi članici).
Two such owninitiative inquiries were opened in 2007.
Leta 2007 sta bili sproženi dve taki preiskavi na lastno pobudo.
The Ombudsman may also use his owninitiative power to tackle what appears to be a systemic problem in the institutions.
Varuh človekovih pravic pa lahko sprožitev na lastno pobudo uporabi tudi za reševanje domnevnih sistemskih težav v institucijah. Na primer:
!In December 2007, the Ombudsman launched an owninitiative inquiry into the subject of the timeliness of payments made by the Commission.
Decembra 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic na lastno pobudo sprožil preiskavo o pravočasnosti plačil Komisije.
He asked the Commission to provide information on what has been done to avoid late payment, statistical data on late payment cases, as well as information about the Commission’s policy on paying interest.
Komisijo je zaprosil za informacij e o sprejetih ukrepih za preprečevanje zamud pri izplačilih, statistične podatke o primerih zamujenih izplačil in informacij e o njeni politiki plačevanja obresti.
This follows complaints from individuals, companies and organisations involved in EU-funded projects and contracts. (OI/5/2007/GG)
Za to se je odločil na podlagi pritožb posameznikov, družb in organizacij , sodelujočih pri projektih in pogodbah, ki jih je financirala EU. (OI/5/2007/GG)
Among the other owninitiative inquiries opened in 2007 were one into EPSO’s computer-based testing (OI/4/2007/ID) and one concerning the management of human resources at the Commission’s Joint Research Centre (OI/6/2007/MHZ).
Med preiskavami, sproženimi na lastno pobudo v letu 2007, sta bili tudi preiskava o preverjanju znanja z uporabo računalnika, ki ga je opravljal EPSO (OI/4/2007/ID), in preiskava o upravljanju kadrov pri Skupnem raziskovalnem središču Komisije. (OI/6/2007/MHZ)
The following owninitiative inquiry was closed during the year:
Med letom je bila končana naslednja preiskava na lastno pobudo.
!The Ombudsman concluded an owninitiative inquiry into the measures adopted by the Commission to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.
Varuh človekovih pravic je končal preiskavo na lastno pobudo o ukrepih, ki jih je Komisija sprejela, da bi zagotovila preprečevanje diskriminacije invalidov pri odnosih z institucijo.
Among the positive measures he identified were those to provide easier access to information via the Commission’s website and to improve recruitment and promotion conditions.
Kot pozitivne je med drugim opredelil ukrepe za lažji dostop do informacij prek spletne strani Komisije ter ukrepe za izboljšanje razmer za zaposlitev in napredovanje.
The Ombudsman underlined, however, that more should be done to sensitise the Commission’s sta� to the needs of people with disabilities.
Vendar pa je poudaril, da bi bilo treba storiti več, da bi se pri osebju Komisije izboljšalo razumevanje potreb invalidov.
He also criticised the situation in the European Schools for pupils with disabilities as inadequate. (OI/3/2003/JMA)
Ocenil je, da so za invalidne učence neustrezne tudi razmere v evropskih šolah. (OI/3/2003/JMA)
Star cases exemplifying best practice
Nadvse uspešni primeri najboljše prakse
A number of the aforementioned cases constitute illustrative examples of best practice that warrant inclusion among the “star cases” of 2007.
Nekaj zgoraj navedenih primerov je zglednih primerov najboljše prakse, ki se zagotovo uvrščajo med „nadvse uspešne primere“ leta 2007.
They serve as a model for the other EU institutions and bodies, in terms of how best to react to issues that the Ombudsman raises.
Drugim institucij am in organom EU so za zgled, kako se najbolje odzvati na vprašanja, na katera jih opozori varuh človekovih pravic.
The Commission, in particular, acted quickly and constructively to se4 le a range of grievances.
Hitro in konstruktivno se je odzvala predvsem Komisija in rešila niz pritožb.
In case 3495/2006/GG, it se4 led, within two weeks, a payment dispute with a German university a er the Ombudsman brought the problem to its a4 ention.
V primeru 3495/2006/GG je rešila spor z nemško univerzo zaradi plačila v dveh tednih po tem, ko je prejela opozorilo varuha človekovih pravic.
Similarly, in case 2577/2004/OV, it accepted a proposal for a friendly solution and reduced the amount to be recovered from a contractor involved in a project in Lebanon.
Podobno je ravnala v primeru 2577/2004/OV, ko je sprejela predlog za sporazumno rešitev in znižala znesek, ki naj bi ga izterjala od pogodbenika, sodelujočega pri projektu v Libanonu.