natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Two complaints raised questions concerning the relationship between the role of national authorities and the role of the Commission in ensuring the application of Community environmental law and in handling complaints.
V dveh pritožbah sta bili sproženi vprašanji glede odnosa med vlogo nacionalnih organov in vlogo Komisije pri zagotavljanju izvajanja okoljske zakonodaje Skupnosti in obravnavi pritožb.
In case 3660/2004/PB, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had provided a reasonable explanation of its strategic role in relation to implementation of the Habitats
V primeru 3660/2004/PB je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da je Komisija zagotovila ustrezno obrazložitev
Assessments under Directive 85/337
zoper Komisijo, kar zadeva presoje vplivov na okolje v skladu z Direktivo 85/337
In case 1166/2006/WP, the Ombudsman noted that EU law concerning judicial cooperation in criminal ma4 ers is still mainly decided through intergovernmental procedures, so that the Commission’s possibilities of taking action are rather limited.
V primeru 943/2006/MHZ varuh človekovih pravic ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri preiskavi Komisije, na podlagi katere so bili sprejeti začasni protidampinški ukrepi za uvoz nekatere obutve.
He also accepted as reasonable the Commission’s argument that there was no need for it to pursue the specific case further because the
Varuh je v odločbi tudi poudaril, da je pri preučevanju primerov, ki zadevajo zapletene gospodarske zadeve, njegova ocena omejena.
Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.
Komisija v zadevnem primeru ni ustrezno obrazložila, zakaj je zavrnila ponudbo, vendar za varuha človekovih pravic zadoščenje, ki ga je zahteval pritožnik, ni bilo sprejemljivo, saj so bile zadevne pogodbe že dodeljene, podpisane in so se že izvajale. V preostalih
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.
Direktiva Sveta 92/43/EGS z dne 21. maja 1992 o ohranjanju naravnih habitatov ter prosto živečih živalskih in rastlinskih vrst, UL 1992 L 206, str. 7.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the e� ects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
Direktiva Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junij a 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, UL 1985 L 175, str. 40.
Complaints relating to employment contracts are dealt with in sub-section "Personnel ma4 ers".
Pritožbe, povezane s pogodbami o zaposlitvi, so obravnavane v podrazdelku “Kadrovske zadeve”.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 the linguistic requirements in the open competitions organised by EPSO following the 2004 enlargement of the Union.
LETNO POROČILO 2007 treh primerih so bili pritožniki z rezultatom zadovoljni.
In case 2825/2004/OV, the Ombudsman found no maladministration by the European Parliament in relation to alleged political interference in the appointment of the Head of Parliament’s information o ce in a Member State.
V primeru 2468/2004/OV je Komisija zaustavila izplačilo zneska, ki ga je dolgovala pritožnikovi družbi, družbo pa uvrstila v sistem zgodnjega opozarjanja.
In addition to the above, the owninitiative inquiry into the integration of people with disabilities by the European Commission (OI/3/2003/JMA) partly concerned questions of employment and recorded progress in a number of relevant areas.
Varuh človekovih pravic ni ugotovil nepravilnosti glede zneska zaustavljenega izplačila, je pa kritično ocenil Komisijo, kar zadeva stalno uvrščanje družbe v sistem zgodnjega opozarjanja.
Other ma4 ers
Kadrovske zadeve
Chapter 3 also contains a number of summaries that fall outside the categories dealt with in the preceding sub-sections.
Poglavje 3 vsebuje povzetke osmih odločb o pritožbah v zvezi s kadrovskimi zadevami, ki prikazujejo različne vrste pritožb, obravnavanih pod tem naslovom.
Six will be mentioned here.
Tu so navedeni štirje primeri.
The Ombudsman dealt with three complaints against the Commission concerning accuracy of information, two of which (1475/2005/(IP)GG and 1476/2005/(BB)GG) were about information material on the rights of air passengers.
Primer 3346/2004/ELB se je nanašal na zahtevo Evropskega urada za izbor osebja (EPSO), da se morajo kandidati registrirati in komunicirati z njim prek spleta.
The Ombudsman concluded that some of the statements criticised by the complainants were indeed incorrect and misleading.
Varuh človekovih pravic je sprejel splošne utemeljitve urada EPSO v zvezi s to zahtevo, vendar mu je priporočil, naj bo pripravljen preučiti ustrezno utemeljene prošnje za izjeme.
The Commission accepted drarecommendations to correct the material.
Urad EPSO je zavrnil osnutek priporočila, v bistvu na podlagi tega, da mu to upravno ustreza.
In case 2403/2006/(WP)BEH, which concerned allegedly wrong information on a Commission website, the Ombudsman found no maladministration.
V primeru 3114/2005/MHZ je varuh človekovih pravic kritično ocenil jezikovne zahteve javnih natečajev, ki jih je urad EPSO organiziral po širitvi Unije leta 2004.
Case 1103/2006/BU concerned a decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) relating to the type-certification basis of certain aircra. A er analysing the relevant legal provisions, the Ombudsman was not convinced that the decision had a su cient legal basis.
Varuh je v odločbi o primeru 3278/2004/ELB pozdravil zavezo Evropskega parlamenta, da ponovno preuči pogoje za sodelovanje doječih žensk na natečajih, in Parlament zaprosil, naj zagotovi, da bo v zadevnih pravilih upoštevano pazljivo in pošteno razmerje med interesi natečaja in zadevnimi načeli, vključno z načelom enakega obravnavanja kandidatov.
In reply to a proposal for a friendly solution, EASA said that it had now been able to obtain the information needed to issue a type certificate and had therefore repealed the contested decision.
V primeru 2825/2004/OV varuh človekovih pravic pri Evropskem parlamentu ni ugotovil nepravilnosti, kar zadeva domnevno politično vmešavanje v imenovanje vodje informacijskega urada Parlamenta v državi članici.
The Ombudsman made further remarks in two decisions on complaints against the European Investment Bank (EIB) made by Polish NGOs working in the field of the environment.
Poleg zgoraj navedenih primerov se je na vprašanja zaposlovanja nanašala tudi preiskava na lastno pobudo v zvezi z Evropsko komisijo in njenim vključevanjem invalidov (OI/3/2003/JMA), v kateri je bil opažen napredek na številnih pomembnih področjih.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE
This chapter consists of a selection of summaries of the Ombudsman’s decisions in 2007, illustrating the range of subjects and institutions involved in complaints and owninitiative inquiries.
V tem poglavju so zbrani povzetki odločb varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2007, ki prikazujejo vrsto področijin institucij , vključenih v pritožbe in preiskave na lastno pobudo.
It includes summaries of the decisions mentioned in the thematic analysis of Chapter 2.
Vključeni so povzetki odločb, navedenih v tematski analizi v poglavju 2.
Summaries of decisions on complaints are organised first by the type of finding or outcome and then by the institution or body concerned.
Povzetki odločb o pritožbah so najprej razvrščeni glede na ugotovitev ali rezultat, potem pa še glede na zadevno institucij o ali organ.
The Chapter ends with a summary of a decision following an owninitiative inquiry and an example of a query submi4 ed by a national ombudsman.
Poglavje se končuje s povzetkom odločbe po preiskavi na lastno pobudo in primerom vprašanja, ki ga je predložil nacionalni varuh človekovih pravic.
Within each sub-section of this chapter, cases are presented in case number order.
V podrazdelkih tega poglavja so primeri navedeni v vrstnem redu po številki primera.
For example, in the European Commission sub-section of section 3.1, case 1166/2006/WP precedes case 2280/2006/MF.
Tako je na primer v podrazdelku Evropska komisija razdelka 3.1 primer 1166/2006/WP pred primerom 2280/2006/MF.
The full decision in each of the cases can be found in the decisions section of the Ombudsman’s website (h4 p://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
Celotne odločbe za vse primere so na voljo na spletni strani evropskega varuha človekovih pravic v razdelku za odločbe (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).
The relevant decision can be accessed using the case number.
Do zadevne določbe je mogoče dostopati z uporabo številke primera.
Full decisions are included on the website in English and in the language of the complaint, if di� erent.
Celotno besedilo odločb je na spletni strani objavljeno v angleščini in jeziku pritožnika, če ta ni angleščina.
A printout of the full decision, as it appears on the website, may be requested from the Ombudsman’s O ce.
Izpis celotne odločbe, kot je objavljena na spletni strani, je mogoče naročiti pri Uradu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
Alleged failure to ensure respect for environmental directives in relation to a dam project in Portugal
Domnevno nesprejetje ukrepov za zagotovitev upoštevanja okoljskih direktiv v zvezi s projektom jeza na Portugalskem
Summary of decision on complaint 2725/2004/(PB)ID against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2725/2004/(PB)ID zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The complainants lodged an infringement complaint with the Commission, concerning the Alqueva Dam and Reservoir project in Portugal.
Pritožniki so Komisiji vložili pritožbo zaradi kršitve v zvezi s projektom jeza in vodnega zbiralnika Alqueva na Portugalskem.
In their complaint to the Ombudsman, they alleged, in summary, that the Commission had failed to take action to ensure respect for Directive 85/3371 and Directive 92/432 in relation to the above project.
Komisija ni sprejela ukrepov, s katerimi bi zagotovila upoštevanje Direktive 85/3371 in Direktive
The Ombudsman considered that the aims of Directive 85/337 are be4 er served when arguments regarding the adequacy and propriety of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), in light of Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive, are submi4 ed to, and considered by, the competent national authorities in the context of the development consent procedure, pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Directive.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da so cilji Direktive 85/337 bolje doseženi, če se argumenti v zvezi z ustreznostjo in pravilnostjo presoje vplivov na okolje (PVO) v skladu s členoma 3 in 5 Direktive predložijo v obravnavo pristojnim nacionalnim organom v okviru postopka pridobivanja soglasja za izvedbo v skladu s členoma 6 in 8 Direktive.
Since the Commission must ensure compliance with Article 8 of the Directive, it should deal diligently with allegations made in an infringement complaint that a Member State granted
Ker mora Komisija zagotoviti skladnost s členom 8 Direktive, mora skrbno obravnavati navedbe v pritožbi o kršitvi, da je država članica dala soglasje za izvedbo v nasprotju s členom 8.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 development consent in violation of Article 8.
LETNO POROČILO 2007
The Ombudsman also considered the situation that occurs when allegations about non-compliance with Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 85/337 are submi4 ed directly to the Commission, through an infringement complaint.
Varuh človekovih pravic je preučil tudi položaj, ko se navedbe o neskladnosti s členoma 3 in 5 Direktive 85/337 predložijo neposredno Komisiji v okviru pritožbe zaradi kršitve.
A finding by the Ombudsman that the Commission’s rejection of such allegations constitutes maladministration presupposes, in light of the scientific and technical nature of the content of the EIA, that the infringement complaint contained allegations and supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Member State had commi4 ed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the EIA met the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 of the Directive.
Ugotovitev varuha človekovih pravic, da zanikanje takšnih trditev s strani Komisije pomeni nepravilnost, glede na znanstveno in tehnično naravo vsebine PVO, predpostavlja, da pritožba zaradi kršitve vsebuje trditve in dokaze, da je država članica naredila očitno napako pri presoji, ko je ugotovila, da PVO izpolnjuje zahteve členov 3 in 5 Direktive.
In the present case, the complainants did not show that they had presented relevant arguments demonstrating, in a su ciently specific and cogent way, such a manifest error of assessment.
V tem primeru pa pritožniki niso pokazali, da so predstavili ustrezne argumente, ki bi dovolj natančno in prepričljivo dokazali tako očitno napako v presoji.
In relation to archaeological sites that appeared to have been discovered, for the first time, during the execution of the project, the Ombudsman remarked that there was substantial, objectively reasonable, doubt as to the applicability of Directive 85/337.
V zvezi z arheološkimi najdišči, ki naj bi bila odkrita prvič med izvajanjem projekta, je varuh človekovih pravic pripomnil, da obstaja tehten in objektivno razumen dvom glede uporabe Direktive 85/337.
Moreover, the complainants’ argument regarding the independence of the challenged EIAs contested, in essence, the wisdom and adequacy of the Directive. Hence, it did not concern a possible instance of maladministration.
Poleg tega je trditev pritožnikov v zvezi z neodvistnostjo sporne PVO v bistvu izpodbijala razumnost in ustreznost Direktive, zato ni povezana z morebitno nepravilnostjo.
As regards the protection of the Iberian Lynx and respect for Directive 92/43, the Ombudsman concluded that the complainants had not shown that they had submi4 ed to the Commission su ciently specific and duly substantiated arguments demonstrating that Portugal’s list of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance was flawed or that Portugal had failed to meet its obligations under Article 12 of the Directive.
Kar zadeva zaščito iberijskega risa in upoštevanje Direktive 92/43, je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da pritožniki niso pokazali, da so Komisiji predložili dovolj natančne in ustrezno utemeljene argumente, da je ogrožen seznam portugalskih območij, ki se upravičeno lahko določijo za območja, pomembna za Skupnost, ali da Portugalska ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz člena 12 Direktive.
In light of the above, and a er taking into account the information given by the Commission about the EIA study of the project it had commissioned before granting Community funding, and other steps it had taken in order to ensure respect of EC environmental law in relation to the same project, the Ombudsman considered that the complainants’ allegation had not been substantiated.
Glede na navedeno in ob upoštevanju informacij , ki jih je posredovala Komisija, o študiji PVO za projekt, ki jo je naročila pred dodelitvijo sredstev Skupnosti, ter drugih ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela, da bi zagotovila upoštevanje okoljske zakonodaje ES v zvezi s tem projektom, je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da trditve pritožnikov niso utemeljene.
Failure to act on a complaint about the infringement of environmental legislation
Neukrepanje v pritožbi zaradi kršitve okoljske zakonodaje
Summary of decision on complaint 3660/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3660/2004/PB zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In her view, Ireland should have included a certain wetland in the list of sites sent to the Commission for the establishment of the NATURA 2000 Network.
Po njenem mnenju bi morala Irska vključiti določeno mokrišče na seznam območij, ki ga je poslala Komisiji za vzpostavitev omrežja NATURA 2000.
The Commission decided not to take action on the complaint, because it was not evident that the wetlands concerned conformed to the scientific description of habitats covered by the Directive and it was necessary to have more detailed ecological information in this respect.
Komisija se je odločila, da ne ukrepa v zvezi s pritožbo, ker ni bilo očitno, da zadevno mokrišče ustreza znanstvenemu opisu habitatov iz direktive in ker je bilo treba v zvezi s tem pridobiti podrobnejše ekološke informacije.
The complainant alleged to the Ombudsman that the Commission wrongly failed to take action on the above ma4 er.
Pritožnica je varuhu človekovih pravic navedla, da je bila odločitev Komisije, da ne ukrepa v zgoraj navedeni zadevi, nepravilna.
She argued that the Commission failed to explain why the relevant wetland was not covered by the Habitats Directive.
Trdila je, da Komisija ni ustrezno pojasnila, zakaj za zadevno mokrišče ni veljala Direktiva o habitatih.
A er examining the relevant legal provisions and case-law, the Ombudsman found that the Commission can reasonably require appropriate scientific information supporting an allegation about violation of the Habitats Directive.
Varuh človekovih pravic je po proučitvi ustreznih predpisov in sodne prakse ugotovil, da Komisija lahko utemeljeno zahteva znanstvene informacij e v podporo domnevi glede kršitve Direktive o habitatih.
Such information includes, in particular, specific and reliable scientific data concerning both the nature and the protectable character, under the Directive, of the site concerned, at least if this character does not seem to be immediately apparent.
Med takšne informacij e sodijo zlasti posebni in zanesljivi znanstveni podatki o vrsti in značaju zadevnega območja, ki se ga v skladu z Direktivo lahko zavaruje, vsaj tedaj, ko značaj ni razviden na prvi pogled.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had provided satisfactory explanations for its challenged omission, which was not unreasonable.
Glede na to je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da je Komisija zagotovila zadovoljivo razlago za svoje ravnanje, ki ni bilo neprimerno.
He thus found no maladministration in this regard.
V zvezi s tem torej ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
The complainant had described how waste was being dumped in the wetland concerned. The Commission explained its decision by stating, in summary, that (i) ensuring compliance with Community environmental law is primarily the responsibility of Member States; (ii) a court case brought by the Commission against Ireland in relation precisely to the Waste Directive had been successful (Case C-494/01); (iii) in the case of general and persistent breaches of Community law, the Commission’s administrative resources are best employed in seeking structural reform; and (iv) one reform achieved in Ireland was the creation in 2003 of an O ce of Environmental Enforcement (OEE), which the complainant could now turn to with her specific grievances.
POVZETKI ODLOČB na Irskem, leta 2003 ustanovljeni Urad za izvrševanje okoljske zakonodaje (Environmental Enforcement), na katerega se pritožnica sedaj lahko obrne s svojimi posebnimi pritožbami.
The Ombudsman accepted the Commission’s explanations in this case as satisfactory and also noted that the Commission had given the complainant relevant useful advice.
Varuh človekovih pravic je sprejel pojasnila Komisije v tem primeru kot zadovoljiva in pripomnil, da je dala Komisija pritožnici ustrezen in koristen nasvet.
He thus found no maladministration regarding this part of the case.
Tako v zvezi s tem delom primera ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
Lack of legal remedy against disciplinary sanction at a European School
Pomanjkanje pravnih sredstev zoper disciplinske ukrepe v Evropski šoli
Summary of decision on complaint 3323/2005/WP against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3323/2005/WP zoper Evropsko komisijo o
A pupil at the European School in Munich was suspended for 38 school days because he and two of his classmates were held responsible for having dropped two thumbtacks into a soup bowl in the School’s canteen.
Dijak Evropske šole v Münchnu je bil suspendiran 38 šolskih dni, ker je z dvema sošolcema vrgel dva risalna žebljička v jušnik v šolski menzi.
The pupil’s mother contested this decision, arguing that her son did not know that his classmates had put into practice what he had expressed as an idea.
Dijakova mati se je pritožila nad odločitvijo, zatrjujoč, da njen sin ni vedel, da so sošolci uresničili zamisel, ki jim jo je omenil.
When the Schools’ Complaints Board declared that it was not competent to hear her case, she brought the ma4 er before a German administrative court.
Ko se je odbor Evropske šole za pritožbe razglasil za nepristojnega za obravnavanje njenega primera, se je obrnila na upravno sodišče v Nemčiji.
However, the court held that the issue did not fall under German jurisdiction.
Vendar pa se je sodišče razglasilo za krajevno nepristojnega. Zato se je dijakova mati obrnila na varuha človekovih pravic.
Since the European Schools are not an institution or body of the European Communities, the Ombudsman asked for an opinion from the Commission, given that the la4 er has a certain responsibility for the operation of the European Schools, which derives from the fact that it is represented on their Board of Governors and contributes largely to their financing. financing.
Ker Evropske šole niso institucij e ali organi Evropskih skupnosti, je varuh človekovih pravic zaprosil za mnenje iz Komisije, saj ta nosi določeno odgovornost za delovanje Evropskih šol, ki izhaja iz dejstva, da je Komisija zastopana v svetu guvernerjev Evropskih šol in veliko prispeva k njihovem financiranju. financiranju.
The Commission submi4 ed that, under a new version of the applicable rules, the Complaints Board was competent to hear cases such as the complainant’s. It added that it saw no objection to the Complaints Board accepting jurisdiction over decisions taken, in such cases, under the previous version of the rules.
Komisija je v odgovoru poudarila, da je odbor za pritožbe v skladu z novo različico veljavnih pravil pristojen za obravnavo primerov, kot je pritožničin, in dodala, da nima pravnih pridržkov zoper odločitve odbora za pritožbe, da se v takih primerih razglasi za pristojnega na podlagi prejšnje različice pravil.
The Commission thus advised the complainant to re-submit her case to the Complaints Board.
Komisija je zato pritožnici svetovala, naj ponovno posreduje primer v presojo odboru za pritožbe.
However, in the absence of an express provision for retroactivity, the Complaints Board rejected the renewed appeal.
Vendar pa je zaradi neobstoja izrecne določbe o retroaktivnosti odbor za pritožbe zavrnil ponovno pritožbo.
The Ombudsman noted that the case arose from a particularly serious measure taken by a European School and that there was a risk that the complainant would be lewithout adequate legal protection.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da je primer posledica posebno resnega ukrepa, ki ga je izrekla Evropska šola, in da obstaja tveganje, da pritožnica ostane brez ustreznega pravnega varstva.
He considered that the importance of the Commission’s involvement in the European Schools system is such that it must play an active role in order to ensure that the Schools comply with principles of good administration.
Varuh je menil, da je vloga Komisije pri delovanju sistema Evropskih šol tako pomembna, da si mora dejavno prizadevati za skladnost delovanja Evropskih šol z načeli dobrega upravljanja.
The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the Commission ensure that a proposal was presented to the Board of Governors for an amendment of the relevant rules.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic predlagal, naj Komisija zagotovi, da bo svetu guvernerjev Evropskih šol posredovan predlog za spremembo ustreznih pravil.
The Commission recalled that it had already drawn the a4 ention of the Board of Governors to the issue, but that it was the only member in favour of a retroactive extension of the Complaints Board’s competences.
Komisija je spomnila, da je opozorila svet guvernerjev Evropskih šol na to temo, vendar pa je bila edina članica, ki je podprla razširitev pristojnosti odbora za pritožbe za nazaj.
However, it added that, since it remained convinced of its position, it had insisted that the Secretary-General of the European Schools put the ma4 er on the agenda again.
Dodala pa je, ker je bila še vedno prepričana o pravilnosti svojega stališča, da je vztrajala, naj generalni sekretar Evropskih šol ponovno uvrsti zadevo na dnevni red.