natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
But the Selection Board communicated neither the specific criteria used for evaluating the degrees and professional experience of the candidates, nor the mark of the last successful candidate.
Izbirna komisij a pa ni posredovala podrobnosti niti o uporabljenih kriterijih za vrednotenje nazivov in strokovnih izkušenj niti ocene zadnjega uspešnega kandidata.
The Selection Board stated that candidates with be er marks had obtained at least one more degree above the one that was required for participating in the competition.
Trdila je, da so kandidati z boljšimi ocenami dosegli vsaj eno stopnjo višji naziv, kot se je zahtevalo za sodelovanje na izbirnem postopku.
The complainant however pointed out that both degrees he had obtained give access to doctoral studies and are relevant to the nature of the tasks.
Pritožnik pa je poudaril, da oba naziva, ki ju je sam dosegel, omogočata doktorske študij e in sta ustrezna naravi teh nalog.
As regards the professional experience, the complainant stated that the Selection Board has answered that candidates with a be er ranking had around 10 years of experience or more.
Kar zadeva strokovne izkušnje je pritožnik navedel, da mu je izbirna komisij a odgovorila, da so imeli bolje ocenjeni kandidati okrog 10 let ali več izkušenj.
Point III.B.3 of the competition notice however provides that the required experience should be of at least 3 years.
III.B.3 točka objavljenega razpisa pa zahteva najmanj 3 leta izkušenj.
The complainant had 7 years of experience, but he obtained a mark of only 14.64/30.
Pritožnik je imel 7 let izkušenj, dosegel pa je le oceno 14,64/30.
The Court of Auditors’ opinion
Mnenje Računskega sodišča
In its opinion, the Court of Auditors observed that, by le er of 8 December 2002, the complainant asked the President of the Selection Board for information on a) the evaluation (marking) criteria of the titles, degrees and professional experience of the candidates, b) his mark and c) the mark of the last successful candidate.
V svojem mnenju Računsko sodišče izjavlja, da je pritožnik pisno prosil predsednika izbirne komisij e za informacij e o a) kriterijih za vrednotenje (točkovanje) nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj kandidatov, b) njegovi oceni in c) oceni zadnjega uspešnega kandidata.
By le er of 30 January 2003, the President of the Selection Board responded to the complainant’s request providing him with some more general information and with his own mark.
Predsednik izbirne komisij e je pisno 30. januarja 2003 odgovoril na pritožnikovo zahtevo ter mu posredoval nekaj dodatnih splošnih informacij in njegovo lastno oceno.
A er having reviewed the ma er further, the Court decided to provide the complainant in addition with the information he had asked for under a) and c).
Po nadaljnjem pregledu zadeve se je sodišče odločilo, da pritožniku posreduje še informacije, ki jih je prosil pod a) in c).
In a le er of 2 May 2003, the President of the Selection Board outlined to the complainant the detailed evaluation criteria of the titles, degrees and professional experience and informed him that he had obtained 14.64/30 points on the basis of that calculation.
Predsednik izbirne komisij e je pritožniku 2. maja 2003 pisno opisal podrobne kriterije vrednotenja nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj in ga obvestil, da je na osnovi tega izračuna dosegel 14,64/30 točk.
In addition, the complainant was informed that the last successful candidate obtained 32 points.
Dodatno so pritožnik obvestili, da je zadnji uspešni kandidat dosegel 32 točk.
The Court enclosed with its opinion the correspondence between the President of the Selection Board and the complainant.
Sodišče je svojemu mnenju priložilo korespondenco med predsednikom izbirne komisij e in pritožnikom.
The President of the Selection Board has recalculated the points obtained by the complainant and confirmed that no error occurred.
Predsednik izbirne komisij e je ponovno izračunal dosežene pritožnikove točke in potrdil, da ni prišlo do napake.
In view of the fact that the complainant obtained less than half of the points of the last successful candidate, the decision not to admit him to the wri en examinations of the competition was maintained.
Odločitev, da se pritožnika ne sprejme na pisno preverjanje v okviru izbirnega postopka, je bila sprejeta glede na dejstvo, da je pritožnik dosegel manj kot pol točk od zadnjega uspešnega kandidata.
The complainant has now received all the information he requested.
Pritožnik je zdaj prejel vse zahtevane informacije. e.
The complainant made no observations on the opinion of the Court of Auditors.
Pritožnik ni podal pripomb na mnenje Računskega sodišča.
Information concerning the selection procedure
Informacij e o izbirnem postopku
1.1 The complainant claims that the Court of Auditors should inform him of a) the evaluation (marking) criteria of the titles, degrees and professional experience of the candidates, b) his mark and c) the mark of the last successful candidate.
1.1 Pritožnik zahteva, naj ga Računsko sodišče obvesti o a) kriterijih za vrednotenje (točkovanje) nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj kandidatov, b) njegovi oceni in c) oceni zadnjega uspešnega kandidata.
1.2 In its opinion, the Court of Auditors observes that, by le er of 30 January 2003, the President of the Selection Board responded to the complainant’s request by providing him with some more general information and with his own mark.
1.2 V svojem mnenju Računsko sodišče izjavlja, da je predsednik izbirne komisij e 30. januarja 2003 pisno odgovoril na pritožnikovo zahtevo ter mu posredoval nekaj več splošnih informacijin njegovo lastno oceno.
In an additional le er of 2 May 2003, the President furthermore provided the complainant with the information requested under a) and c), namely the detailed evaluation criteria of the titles, degrees and professional experience and the fact that the complainant obtained a mark of 14.64/40 points.
V dodatnem pismu 2. maja 2003 je predsednik pritožniku posredoval zahtevane informacij e pod a) in c), namreč podrobne kriterije vrednotenja nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj, in dejstvo, da je dosegel 14.64/40 točk.
The complainant was also informed that the last successful candidate obtained a mark of 32/40 points.
Pritožnik je bil tudi obveščen, da je zadnji uspešni kandidat dosegel 32/40 točk.
1.3 It appears from the above that the complainant has obtained all the information that he asked for.
1.3 Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je pritožnik prejel vse zahtevane informacije.
This aspect of the complaint therefore appears to have been se led by the Court of Auditors to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Računsko sodišče je ta vidik pritožbe za pritožnika rešilo zadovoljivo.
The claim for a re-examination of the complainant’s candidature
Zahteva za ponovno preučitev pritožnikove kandidature
The complainant claims that his candidature should be reexamined.
Pritožnik zahteva, da naj njegovo kandidaturo ponovno preučijo. o.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that, in its le er of 2 May 2003, the Selection Board first explained to the complainant how his marks had been calculated, both for the additional diploma and the additional professional experience.
2.4 Varuh meni, da je bilo pojasnilo, ki ga je izbirna komisij a posredovala pritožniku, ustrezno.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.
Varuh zato v tem vidiku pritožbe ne najde nepravilnosti.
It appears from the Court of Auditors’ comments that it has taken steps to se le part 1 of the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Iz pripomb Računskega sodišča je očitno, da je ukrepalo v smeri rešitve 1. dela pritožbe in je zato zadovoljilo pritožnika.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into part 2 of this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Court of Auditors.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov 2. dela preiskave ugotavlja, da Računsko sodišče ni ravnalo nepravilno in s tem primer zaključuje.
3.2.4 The European Commission and the Court of Auditors
3.2.4 Evropska komisij a in Računsko sodišče
COMMISSION AGREES TO MAKE FINAL PAYMENT
KOMISIJ A SE STRINJA Z IZPLAČILOM KONČNEGA PLAČILA
Decision on complaint 1915/2002/BB against the European Commission and the Court of Auditors
Sklep o pritožbi 1915/2002/BB zoper Evropsko komisij o in Računsko sodišče
The European Commission and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences (herea er: “the ICCR”) as one of the principal contractors, signed a contract on 22 December 1999.
Evropska komisij a in Interdisciplinarni center za primerjalne raziskave na področju družboslovnih ved (v nadaljevanju: “ICCR), kot eden glavnih izvajalcev, sta 22. decembra 1999 podpisala pogodbo.
The contract was called Thematic Network contract No. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANSTALK” under the Fi h Framework Programme.
Pogodba se je imenovala Pogodba vsebinske mreže št. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANS-TALK” v sklopu petega okvirnega programa.
This contract covered a period of 18 months, from January 2000 until the end of June 2001.
Pogodba je bila sklenjena za obdobje 18 mesecev, od januarja 2000 do konca junij a 2001.
The total estimated costs of the project were € 601,015 and the initial advance payment was fixed at € 180,305 to be distributed amongst the fi ve principal contractors.
Skupni ocenjeni stroški projekta so znašali 601.015 €, določeno začetno predplačilo v višini 180.305 € pa naj bi se porazdelilo med pet glavnih izvajalcev.
The ICCR submi ed cost statements at regular six-month intervals.
ICCR je redno vsakih šest mesecev predložil poročilo o stroških.
On 31 October 2001, the ICCR was notified that the Court of Auditors would carry out an audit of the project.
31. oktobra 2001 so ICCR obvestili, da bo Računsko sodišče opravilo revizijo projekta. Revizija je trajala med 16. in 18. januarjem 2002.
According to the complainants, the auditors stated that they would be submi ing their report to the Commission by the end of January 2002.
Po navedbah pritožnikov so revizorji omenili, da bodo Komisij i oddali poročilo do konca januarja 2002.
The ICCR submi ed the final cost statement to the Commission in August 2001.
ICCR je končno finančno poročilo Komisij i oddal avgusta 2001. 11. decembra 2001 ga je potrdil generalni direktorat TREN Komisije. Glede na to, da ICCR od Komisij e ni prejel odziva, je koordinatorka projekta 26. februarja 2002 po e-pošti prosila finančnega uradnika Komisije, naj se pozanima o stanju končnega plačila.
By email of 28 February 2002 she was notified that the final payment could not be made prior to receipt of the Court of Auditors’ report.
28. februarja 2002 so jo po e-pošti obvestili, da končnega plačila ne morejo izplačati preden ne dobijo poročila Računskega sodišča.
On 13 June 2002, the financial officer of the Commission forwarded, by email, the report of the auditors with a request for some clarifications.
13. junij a 2002 je finančni uradnik Komisij e po e-pošti skupaj s poročilom revizorjev posredoval zahtevo za pojasnila.
The auditor’s report was dated 15 April 2002.
Poročilo revizorjev je bilo z dne 15. aprila 2002.
The ICCR supplied the Commission with the requested information, via email, on 14 June 2002.
ICCR je Komisij i po e-pošti 14. junij a 2002 poslal zahtevane informacije.
On 8 July 2002, the ICCR sent, on its own initiative, a full opinion on the Court of Auditors’ report to the fi financial officer of the Commission.
8. julij a je ICCR na svojo lastno pobudo poslal svoje mnenje o poročilu Računskega sodišča finančnemu uradniku Komisije. e.
In a le er addressed to the Commission and dated 12 July 2002, the ICCR requested formal clarification regarding the status of the final payment of the contract.
V pismu z dne 12. julij a 2002, ki je bilo naslovljeno na Komisijo, je ICCR zahteval uradno pojasnilo o stanju končnega plačila pogodbe.
The Commission sent an undated reply in August 2002 stating that the payment would be suspended with reference to Article 3.2 of Annex II of the contract.
Komisij a je poslala nedatiran odgovor avgusta 2002, kjer je navedla, da se plačilo v skladu s členom 3.2. priloge II.pogodbe.
On 29 August 2002, the ICCR informed the Commission that it could not accept Article 3.2 as a reason for suspension of the final payment.
ICCR je 29.avgusta 2002 obvestil Komisijo, da člen 3.2 ne more biti razlog za zadržanje končnega plačila.
According to the complainants, the Commission did not reply to this le er.
Po navedbah pritožnikov Komisij a ni odgovorila na to pismo.
On 24 October 2002, the complainants made a complaint on behalf of the ICCR to the Ombudsman against the European Commission and the Court of Auditors.
24. oktobra 2002 so pritožniki v imenu ICCR-ja pri Varuhu vložili pritožbo zoper Evropsko komisij o in Računsko sodišče.
The complaint concerns the outstanding final payment of € 80,671.61 for Thematic Network contract No. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANSTALK” and the audit carried out by the Court.
Pritožba se nanaša na neporavnano končno plačilo 80.671,61 € za Pogodbo vsebinske mreže št. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANS-TALK” in na revizijo, ki jo je opravilo sodišče.
As regards the European Commission, the complainants made the following allegations:
V zvezi z Evropsko komisij o so pritožniki postavili sledeče trditve:
1) Lack of information regarding the status of the audit and of the final payment; and
1) pomanjkljive informacij e glede stanja revizije in končnega plačila in
2) Non-payment of the outstanding final payment of € 80,671.61.
2) neplačilo neporavnanega končnega plačila v višini 80.671,61 €.
The complainants claimed se lement of the final payment with interest and an official European Commission position on the audit carried out by the Court of Auditors and on the procedures followed by both institutions.
Pritožniki so zahtevali poravnavo končnega plačila z obrestmi in uradno stališče Evropske komisij e o reviziji, ki jo je opravilo Računsko sodišče in o postopkih, ki so sledili s strani obeh institucij .
As regards the Court of Auditors, the complainants alleged that the report drew false conclusions and ignored the input provided by the ICCR, and that there was undue delay in submi ing the report to the Commission.
V zvezi z Računskim sodiščem so pritožniki navedli, da je poročilo povzelo napačne zaključke in prezrlo prispevek ICCR-ja in da je ob oddaji poročila Komisij i prišlo do neprimerne zamude.
In its opinion, the Commission made the following points:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju navedla sledeče točke:
In the context of the management of indirect RTD actions under the Fi h Framework Programme, the Court of Auditors carried out an audit of the Thematic Network contract No. 1999- TN.10869 “TRANSTALK” at the ICCR in Vienna.
V sklopu upravljanja neposrednih dejavnosti RTR (raziskave in tehnološki razvoj) v okviru petega okvirnega programa je Računsko sodišče na ICCR-ju na Dunaju opravilo revizijo Pogodbe vsebinske mreže št. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANS-TALK”.
The auditor’s report raised certain complex and serious ma ers which required careful consideration by the financial services of the Commission.
Revizijsko poročilo je odprlo določena kompleksna in resna vprašanja, ki so zahtevala temeljito presojo finančnih služb Komisije. e.
The Court of Auditors came to the conclusion that some declared costs were non-eligible and were without supporting evidence.
Računsko sodišče je zaključilo, da so bili nekateri navedeni stroški neprimerni in brez ustreznih dokazil.
This included especially: overcharging by the beneficiary for cost statements; non-compliance with the contract by the beneficiary regarding the use of budget rates; subcontracted consultant declared as a permanent employee.
To še posebej vključuje primer: upravičenec je prikazal previsoko poročilo o stroških; kršil pogodbo glede na določeno proračunsko porabo; svetovalec po stranski pogodbi pa je naveden kot stalno zaposlen.
On the basis of the Court of Auditors’ report, the Commission decided to suspend payments to the beneficiary until its final examination of additional documents provided by the beneficiary. ciary.
Na podlagi poročila Računskega sodišča se je Komisij a odločila zadržati plačila do končnega preverjanja dodatnih dokumentov, zagotovljenih s strani upravičenca.
On 28 February 2002, the Commission informed the ICCR of the situation regarding the final payment and its examination in the context of this audit. The ongoing discussions with the ICCR started in the summer 2002.
28. februarja 2002 je Komisij a o stanju končnega plačila in preverjanju v sklopu te revizije obvestila ICCR.
In the meantime, discussions between the Commission and the Court of Auditors were completed in the autumn of 2002.
Trajajoče razprave z ICCR-jem so se začele poleti 2002.
While undertaking these additional investigations, the Commission confirmed to the ICCR in August 2002 that all payments were suspended.
Medtem so se jeseni 2002 zaključile razprave med Komisij o in Računskim sodiščem.
The Commission requested additional information by le er dated 5 December 2002.
Ko so se lotili teh dodatnih preiskav, je Komisij a avgusta 2002 ICCR-ju potrdila, da so vsa plačila zadržana.
The reply from the ICCR dated 24 January 2003 was received and the Commission informed the ICCR that this reply was under examination with a view to an early resolution of the final payment.
Komisij a je 5. decembra 2002 pisno zahtevala dodatne informacije. 24. januarja 2003 je prejela odgovor ICCR-ja, ki ga je nato obvestila, da odgovor preučuje z željo, da se čimprej izvede končno plačilo.
On 13 May 2003, the Commission informed the ICCR that the final payment of € 50,821.03 had been made.
13. maja 2003 je Komisij a obvestila ICCR, da je bilo končno plačilo v višini 50.821,03 € izplačano.
According to the Commission, the amount of € 29,799.63 could not be taken into account, since this would involve transfer between cost categories that require prior authorisation.
Po mnenju Komisij e se znesek v višini 29.799,63 € ni mogel upoštevati, saj bi to vključevalo prenos med stroškovnimi razredi, ki zahteva predhodno odobritev.
The complainants’ observations on the Commission’s opinion
Pripombe pritožnika na mnenje Komisij e
The complainants made, in summary, the following points:
Mnenje pritožnikov v povzetku vsebuje naslednje točke:
This case raises general issues concerning delays by the Community institutions in responding to repeated requests for information and the length of the procedure.
Ta primer odpira splošna vprašanja o zamudah v institucijah Skupnosti v odgovarjanjih na ponavljane zahteve po informacijah in trajanju postopka.
According to the complainants, the principle of transparency requires that these general issues should be addressed.
Po mnenju pritožnikov načelo transparentnosti zahteva naslovitev teh splošnih vprašanj.
Following the complainants’ reply to the Commission dated 27 May 2003, the Commission had proceeded to pay the remaining sum of € 20,447.79.
Po odgovoru pritožnikov Komisij i 27. maja 2003 je Komisij a izvedla plačilo preostalega zneska v višini 20.447,79 €.
The Court of Auditors made, in summary, the following points:
Mnenje Računskega sodišča v povzetku vsebuje naslednje točke:
The document at the centre of this complaint is not a report adopted by the Court of Auditors but a sector le er.
Osrednji dokument te pritožbe ni poročilo, ki ga je sprejelo Računsko sodišče, ampak sektorsko pismo.
The objective of a sector le er is to present the preliminary findings obtained in the course of an audit to the auditee, which in the internal policies area, is the Commission.
Cilj sektorskega pisma je v poteku revizije pridobljene predhodne ugotovitve predstaviti revidirancu, ki je po pravilih notranje politike Komisij a.
Following further analysis of the Commission’s reaction to the factual information and related remarks stated in the sector le er, these findings may then form the basis of observations presented in reports of the Court of Auditors.
Ugotovitve, ki sledijo nadaljnji analizi reakcije Komisij e na dejanske informacij e in z njimi povezane pripombe v sektorskem pismu,
In some cases, it may also require corrective action by the Commission.
V nekaj primerih se lahko zahteva korektivni ukrep Komisije.
Since the fi findings and observations are preparatory at the stage of a sector le er and are, in principle, subject
Glede na to, da imajo ugotovitve in pripombe na stopnji sektorskega pisma pripravljalen značaj in so načeloma predmet nadaljnjega preverjanja, ostanejo med sodiščem in Komisij o zaupne narave.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING to further verification work, they remain confidential between the Court and the Commission.
Pokazalo pa se je, da je uradnik Komisij e elektronsko kopij o zaupnega sektorskega pisma posredoval ICCR-ju.
In the present case, the sector le er N° 740/02 reporting the audit findings resulting from the audit of the contract “TRANS-TALK”, was addressed to the Commissioner in charge of DG Energy & Transport (TREN). Following normal practice, the electronic version of this sector le er was then dispatched to the liaison officer at DG TREN. It appears, however, that an electronic copy of the confidential sector le er was then forwarded to the ICCR by an official of the Commission. As regards the allegation of false conclusions, the auditors of the Court follow the Court’s Audit Policies and Standards (CAPS) and internationally recognised audit standards, such as those of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI).
Kar zadeva trditev napačnega zaključka, revizorji sodišča sledijo politiki in standardom revizije sodišča (CAPS) in mednarodno priznanim standardom, kot so standardi Mednarodne organizacij e vrhovnih revizijskih institucij (INTOSAI - International Organization of SupremeAudit Institutions).
Also, the Court’s procedures provide for an extensive internal quality control before audit findings and observations are submi ed to the auditee.
Hkrati postopki sodišča nudijo širok notranji nadzor kakovosti, preden so ugotovitve in pripombe predložene revidirancu.
Those standards and procedures were followed in the present case.
Tudi v tem primeru so se ti standardi in postopki upoštevali.
As to the allegation that the input provided by the ICCR was ignored, the audit team took all information provided by the complainants into account to the extent considered relevant for the audit.
V zvezi s trditvijo, da se je prezrl prispevek ICCR-ja, pa je skupina za revizijo upoštevala vse informacije, ki so jih pritožniki zagotovili, do tiste meje, ki je za revizijo primerna.
All findings in the sector le er addressed to the Commission are supported by sufficient and appropriate audit evidence, based on information collected and received during and a er the audit at the premises of the ICCR, as well as from the Commission.
Vse ugotovitve sektorskega pisma Komisij i imajo podporo v ustreznih in primernih dokazih revizije, ki temeljijo na zbranih in prejetih informacijah med in po reviziji v prostorih ICCR-ja in od Komisije. e.
Regarding the allegation of undue delay, the Audit Manual of the Court states that a sector le er should be sent within two months of the completion of the mission.
V zvezi s trditvami o neprimerni zamudi pa revizijski priročnik sodišča navaja, da se mora sektorsko pismo poslati v roku dveh mesecev po zaključku naloge.
However, this internal rule has no binding character on the Court with regard to the complainants.
To notranje pravilo pa za sodišče v razmerju do pritožnika ni zavezujoče.
Furthermore, the fact that the sector le er was sent in the present case with a slight delay, which by no means can be considered as undue, does not affect the interests of the complainants in any way.
Nadalje pa dejstvo, da je bilo sektorsko pismo v tem primeru poslano z rahlo zamudo, ki pa ni neupravičena, na noben način ne prizadane interesov pritožnikov.
The complainants’ observations on the Court of Auditors’ opinion
Pripombe pritožnika na mnenje Računskega sodišča
The complainants made, in summary, the following remarks:
Mnenje pritožnikov v povzetku vsebuje naslednje komentarje: