natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Summary of decision on complaint 1807/2006/MHZ against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1807/2006/MHZ zoper Evropsko investicijsko banko (EIB)
Two Polish environmental NGOs complained to the Ombudsman that, contrary to its “Environmental Statement”, the EIB failed to ensure compliance of 2001 flood reconstruction and repair works with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.
Dve poljski okoljevarstveni nevladni organizacij i sta se pritožili varuhu človekovih pravic, da EIB v nasprotju s svojo „okoljsko izjavo“ ni zagotovila skladnosti obnovitvenih del in popravil po poplavi v letu 2001 z direktivo o presoji vplivov na okolje.
The complainants also alleged that the EIB failed to exercise due diligence in its October 2004 monitoring mission to Poland, and claimed that it should ensure that all projects that it agrees to finance in non-Member States comply with the Directive.
Pritožnika sta trdila, da EIB ni ravnala s potrebno skrbnostjo med svojim nadzornim obiskom na Poljskem oktobra 2004 in da bi EIB morala zagotoviti, da so vsi projekti, katerih financiranje odobri v državah nečlanicah, skladni z navedeno direktivo.
Finally, the complainants complained that the EIB refused access to the Project’s Finance Contract and related documents.
Pritožnika sta se na koncu pritožila, da je EIB zavrnila dostop do finančne pogodbe za projekt in povezanih dokumentov.
In its opinion, the EIB took the view that, on the basis of (i) its assessment of the relevant Reports sent by the Polish authorities and (ii) its monitoring visits to Poland, including the 2004 visit, the relevant procedures applied by the Polish authorities were acceptable.
EIB je v svojem mnenju izrazila stališče, da so na podlagi (i) njene ocene ustreznih poročil, ki so jih poslali poljski organi oblasti, in (ii) njenih nadzornih obiskov na Poljskem, vključno z obiskom leta 2004, zadevni postopki, ki so jih izvedle poljske oblasti, sprejemljivi.
The EIB refused access to the Finance Contract and implied that finance contracts were covered by professional secrecy as a ma4 er of principle. However, in the course of the inquiry, it disclosed the related documents.
EIB je zavrnila dostop do finančne pogodbe in navedla, da za finančne pogodbe načeloma velja poslovna tajnost, vendar pa je med preiskavo razkrila ustrezne dokumente.
The Ombudsman found that the EIB failed to react to relevant Polish Reports which appeared to suggest that the Polish authorities did not consider the relevant Directive procedure necessary for the works.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da se EIB ni odzvala na ustrezna poljska poročila, ki so očitno kazala na to, da poljski organi oblasti niso menili, da je ustrezni postopek iz Direktive potreben za zadevna dela.
This approach appeared to be contrary to the interpretation of the European Court of Justice of the Directive26. The Ombudsman found that this constituted an instance of maladministration and made a critical remark.
Zdi se, da je ta pristop v nasprotju z razlago Direktive, kot jo tolmači Sodišče.26 Varuh je ugotovil, da gre za primer nepravilnosti, in podal kritično oceno.
However, as regards the allegation concerning the 2004 monitoring mission to Poland, he considered that no further inquiries were justified, given that the EIB appeared to have given a reasonable followup to the complaints received from various NGOs during that mission.
Kar pa zadeva trditve v zvezi z nadzornim obiskom na Poljskem v letu 2004, je varuh menil, da ni potrebna nadaljnja preiskava, ker je EIB očitno izvedla razumne nadaljnje ukrepe v zvezi s pritožbami, ki jih je prejela od različnih nevladnih organizacij med tem obiskom.
The Ombudsman made the same finding as regards the complainants’ claim because it appeared that the EIB had taken some initiatives to improve its procedure and disseminate EU best practice.
Varuh je ugotovil enako v zvezi s pritožnikovo trditvijo, glede na to, da je EIB očitno že sprejela nekatere pobude, da bi izboljšala svoj postopek in razširila najboljšo prakso EU.
As regards access to the Finance Contract, the Ombudsman, relying on an earlier decision, found that it was reasonable to accept that the EIB, in its role as a banking institution, was obliged to respect professional secrecy.
V zvezi z dostopom do finančne pogodbe je varuh človekovih pravic na podlagi prejšnje odločbe ugotovil, da je razumno pričakovati, da je EIB kot bančna ustanova dolžna upoštevati poslovno tajnost.
He also noted that the EIB had disclosed the other documents during the inquiry. For these reasons, no further inquiries were justified regarding access to documents.
Ugotovil je tudi, da je EIB med preiskavo razkrila druge dokumente, zato niso potrebne nadaljnje preiskave v zvezi z dostopom do dokumentov.
The Ombudsman made a further remark noting that the complainants had played a valuable role in bringing to the EIB’s a4 ention relevant information which it was previously unaware of.
Varuh je pripravil dodatno pripombo, v kateri je dejal, da sta pritožnika pomembno prispevala k opozarjanju EIB glede pomembnih informacij , s katerimi prej ni bila seznanjena.
He went on to say that he trusted that, in the future, the Bank would continue to engage constructively with NGOs in the di� erent Member States and also outside the EU.
Dejal je tudi, da zaupa EIB, da bo v prihodnje konstruktivno sodelovala z nevladnimi organizacijami v različnih državah članicah in tudi zunaj Evropske unije. e.
C-72/95 Kraa' eveld [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraphs 32 and 49.
Zahtevek za dostop do seznama ima za posledico „nesorazmeren napor“
He based his request on Article 11 of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents27. OLAF replied that such a list did not exist and that it would be a disproportionate burden on its sta� to produce one.
OLAF je odgovoril, da takšen seznam do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije e ne obstaja in da bi njegova priprava predstavljala nesorazmeren napor za njegovo osebje.
OLAF o� ered that it was ready to help as much as possible if the complainant narrowed down his request, which, however, the la4 er refused to do.
OLAF je ponudil, da bo pomagal po svojih močeh, če pritožnik svojo zahtevo omeji, česar pa slednji ni bil pripravljen storiti.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, OLAF maintained its position.
OLAF je med preiskavo varuha človekovih pravic vztrajal pri svojem stališču.
It argued that the complainant’s request would require it to review some 8 000 documents.
Trdil je, da pritožnikova zahteva pomeni pregledovanje kakih 8 000 dokumentov.
Most of its heads of unit would have to be involved in order to check the correspondence falling under their responsibility.
Pri tem bi morala sodelovati tudi večina vodij enote, saj bi morali preveriti korespondenco, ki sodi pod njihovo pristojnost.
In addition, a German lawyer and the data protection o cer would have to ensure that data protection requirements were met.
Poleg tega bi morala nemški odvetnik in uradna oseba za varstvo podatkov zagotoviti, da se upoštevajo zahteve v zvezi z varstvom podatkov.
According to OLAF, this would distract its limited human resources from their core task of deterring and detecting fraud.
OLAF je trdil, da se omejeno število njegovih zaposlenih tako ne bi moglo posvečati svoji osnovni nalogi preprečevanja in odkrivanja goljufij.
However, as proof of its good will, OLAF provided the complainant with a list covering the relevant correspondence that had been exchanged in the last three months of 2004.
Je pa OLAF v dokaz svoje dobre volje pritožniku zagotovil seznam, ki zajema ustrezno korespondenco, izmenjano v zadnjih treh mesecih leta 2004.
The Ombudsman noted that OLAF did not deny the complainant’s right to receive information of the type he requested, but only contended that compiling all the information would require a disproportionate e� ort.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da OLAF pritožniku ni odrekel pravice do prejema zahtevane vrste informacij , temveč je samo trdil, da bi zbiranje vseh informacij zahtevalo nesorazmeren napor.
He recalled that, according to case-law of the Community courts, a request for access to documents could only be rejected on this basis in exceptional cases.
Opozoril je, da se v skladu s sodno prakso sodišč Skupnosti zahtevek za dostop do dokumentov zavrne na podlagi teh razlogov samo izjemoma.
In the Ombudsman’s view, this case-law was also relevant in the present case.
Po mnenju varuha človekovih pravic se ta sodna praksa nanaša tudi na ta primer.
The Ombudsman was not convinced that complying with the complainant’s request would require a disproportionate e� ort by OLAF.
Poleg tega varuh človekovih pravic ni bil prepričan, da bi ugoditev pritožnikovi zahtevi od urada OLAF zahtevala nesorazmeren napor.
Only around one-fi h of the documents on the list provided by OLAF were relevant.
Z zahtevkom je povezana samo približno petina dokumentov s seznama, ki ga je zagotovil OLAF.
It thus appeared that the overall number of documents concerned was far smaller than OLAF had indicated.
Zaradi tega se zdi, da je skupno število zadevnih dokumentov nižje od tistega, ki ga je navedel OLAF.
The Ombudsman accepted that the remaining list was still very long and that, therefore, ascertaining that it did not include confidential data was likely to require a considerable amount of work.
Varuh človekovih pravic se je strinjal, da je preostali seznam še vedno zelo dolg in da bi preverjanje, ali ne vključuje zaupnih podatkov, verjetno res zahtevalo precej dela.
However, and with a view to the data that needed to be checked in doing so, he concluded that OLAF had not established that this work was disproportionate.
Vendar je ob upoštevanju podatkov, ki jih je treba pri tem preveriti, ugotovil, da OLAF ni dokazal, da bi bilo to delo nesorazmerno.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, if citizens are to be able to make use of their rights under Regulation 1049/2001, they need to know what documents are in the possession of the administration concerned.
Varuh človekovih pravic je poudaril, da morajo državljani vedeti, katere dokumente ima zadevna uprava, če hočejo izkoriščati pravice, ki jim jih daje Uredba 1049/2001.
He took the view that, as long as there is no easily accessible register or as long as this register is not su ciently complete, the EU institutions must be prepared to provide citizens with ad-hoc lists, even if their preparation constitutes a considerable burden.
Če ni zlahka dostopne in dovolj popolne evidence, morajo biti institucij e Skupnosti po njegovem mnenju pripravljene državljanom zagotoviti priložnostne sezname, čeprav njihova priprava prinaša precejšnjo obremenitev.
Given that OLAF rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution in this case and, subsequently, his drarecommendation, the Ombudsman closed the case with critical remarks relating both to its procedural and its substantive aspects.
Ker je OLAF v tem primeru zavrnil predlog varuha človekovih pravic za sporazumno rešitev in s tem tudi njegov osnutek priporočila, je varuh človekovih pravic primer zaključil s kritičnima ocenama, ki se nanašata tako na postopkovne kot tudi vsebinske vidike primera.
Publication of incorrect and misleading information on rights of air passengers
Komisija je pripravila in objavila letak, plakat in informativni bilten, zato da bi seznanila potnike z novimi pravicami, ki jim pripadajo v skladu z Uredbo 261/2004.
The Commission also produced a short video presentation and issued a press release to mark the coming into force of the Regulation.
Komisija je pripravila tudi kratko video predstavitev in izdala sporočilo za javnost, s katerim je želela opozoriti na začetek veljavnosti uredbe.
All these materials were also made available on the Commission’s website.
Vse to gradivo je bilo na voljo tudi na spletni strani Komisije. e.
Two associations of airlines — the European Regions Airlines Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) — considered that the material published by the Commission contained incorrect and misleading information.
Dve združenji letalskih prevoznikov – European Regions Airlines Association (ERA) in International Air Carrier Association (IACA) – sta menili, da gradivo, ki ga je objavila Komisija, vsebuje nepravilne in zavajajoče informacije. e.
A er the Commission had rejected the bulk of their objections, the two associations turned to the Ombudsman.
Združenji sta se obrnili na varuha človekovih pravic, potem ko je Komisija zavrnila večino njunih pripomb.
Both associations alleged that the information concerning passengers’ rights under Regulation 261/2004, which the Commission had published in its poster, leaflet, fact sheet, and included in its video presentation, contained inaccurate and misleading statements.
Obe združenji sta trdili, da so informacij e o pravicah potnikov v skladu z Uredbo 261/2004, ki jih je Komisija objavila na plakatu, letaku, v informativnem biltenu in vključila v video predstavitev, vsebovale nenatančne in zavajajoče trditve.
The complainants claimed that the Commission should withdraw these statements.
Pritožniki so navedli, da bi morala Komisija te trditve preklicati.
The complaint submi4 ed by ERA covered certain further issues (alleged failure to act fairly and reasonably and to be service-minded, accessible, and helpful; alleged failure to reply to le4 ers within an appropriate period of time; and a claim for an apology).
Pritožba, ki jo je vložilo združenje ERA, je zajemala še nekaj dodatnih vprašanj (domnevno nepošteno, nerazumno, nevestno, nedostopno in neustrežljivo ravnanje; domnevno prepozno odgovarjanje na dopise in zahtevo za opravičilo).
A er a thorough inquiry, the Ombudsman arrived at the conclusion that a number of the statements criticised by the complainants were indeed inaccurate or misleading.
Varuh človekovih pravic je po temeljiti preiskavi sklenil, da je bila vrsta trditev, ki sta jih kritizirala pritožnika, dejansko netočnih in zavajajočih.
The Ombudsman therefore addressed, in both cases, a dra recommendation to the Commission, urging the la4 er to correct these statements.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato v obeh zadevah na Komisijo naslovil osnutek priporočila, v katerem je zahteval, naj popravi te trditve.
In the drarecommendation concerning the complaint submi4 ed by ERA, the Commission was also requested to present an apology to the complainant.
V osnutku priporočila v zvezi s pritožbo združenja ERA je od Komisije zahteval še, naj se pritožniku opraviči.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had taken note of his drarecommendation and that the leaflet, poster, fact-sheet, and video presentation in question had been withdrawn from its website.
Komisija je v podrobno obrazloženem mnenju obvestila varuha človekovih pravic, da je upoštevala njegov osnutek priporočila in s svoje spletne strani umaknila sporen letak, plakat, informativni bilten in video predstavitev.
The Commission further pointed out that replacement information would be produced and that the new information material had been sent to the stakeholders concerned, including the complainants, for comments.
Komisija je poleg tega poudarila, da bo pripravila nadomestne informacij e in da je zainteresiranim strankam, tudi pritožnikom, poslala novo informacijsko gradivo, tako da bodo lahko predložile morebitne pripombe.
Case 1476/2005/(BB)GG
Zadeva 1476/2005/(BB)GG
In its observations, IACA pointed out that it was pleased to note that, due to the Ombudsman’s drarecommendation, the Commission had withdrawn its misleading documentation on passenger rights from its website.
Združenje IACA je v svojih pripombah izrazilo zadovoljstvo, ker je Komisija zaradi osnutka priporočila varuha človekovih pravic umaknila zavajajočo dokumentacijo o pravicah potnikov s svoje spletne strani.
IACA stressed that it was satisfied with the procedure leading to the publication of the new version of the Commission’s poster on 4 April 2007.
Združenje IACA je poudarilo, da so zadovoljni s postopkom, na podlagi katerega je bila 4. aprila 2007 objavljena nova različica plakata.
In view of the above, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had satisfactorily implemented the dra recommendation that was made in this case.
Varuh človekovih pravic je glede na navedeno menil, da je Komisija zadovoljivo izpolnila osnutek priporočila, ki je bil pripravljen v tem primeru.
Case 1475/2005/(IP)GG
Zadeva 1475/2005/(IP)GG
In its observations, ERA welcomed the action taken by the Commission and added that the Commission had accepted all the comments it had made on the new information material.
Združenje ERA je v svojih pripombah pozdravilo ukrepe Komisije in dodalo, da je Komisija sprejela vse pripombe, ki so jih podali na novo informativno gradivo.
However, ERA considered that three issues still needed to be addressed: (i) Since the old version of the poster was still on display at many EU airports, the Ombudsman was requested to make a specific recommendation that the Commission should instruct airports to withdraw these posters. (ii) The Ombudsman should, furthermore, seek a commitment from the Commission that it will consult airline associations and act on their input prior to changing the new poster or producing any new material. (iii) The Commission had not apologised to the complainant and had made no reference to this part of the dra recommendation in its detailed opinion.
Združenje ERA pa je vseeno menilo, da so tri vprašanja ostala nerešena: (i) Ker po veliko letališčih v EU še vedno visi stara različica plakata, so varuha človekovih pravic zaprosili, naj pripravi posebno priporočilo, v skladu s katerim naj Komisija letališčem odredi, da te plakate umaknejo. (ii) Poleg tega bi moral varuh človekovih pravic od Komisije zahtevati, naj se zaveže, da se bo pred spreminjanjem novega plakata in pripravo kakršnega koli novega gradiva posvetovala z letalskimi združenji in upoštevala njihove pripombe. (iii) Komisija se pritožniku ni opravičila in v svojem podrobno obrazloženem mnenju ni omenjala tega dela osnutka priporočila.
The Ombudsman was requested to pursue this issue.
Združenje je varuha človekovih pravic zaprosilo, naj razišče to vprašanje.
As regards the first issue (which had also been mentioned by IACA), the Ombudsman noted that he trusted that the Commission would take the necessary steps in this direction once the issue had been drawn to its a4 ention through this decision.
Varuh človekovih pravic je glede prvega vprašanja (ki ga je navedlo tudi združenje IACA) izrazil prepričanje, da bo Komisija sprejela potrebne ukrepe v tej smeri, ko bo na to opozorjena s to določbo.
The Ombudsman however invited the Commission to report to him on this issue by 31 July 2007.
Je pa varuh vseeno pozval Komisijo, naj mu do 31. julija 2007 poroča o tem vprašanju.
As regards the second issue, the Ombudsman took the view that it would not be appropriate to extend his examination to this further claim at this advanced stage of his inquiry.
Glede drugega vprašanja je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da na tej stopnji ne bi bilo ustrezno razširjati preiskave na to dodatno zahtevo.
The complainant remained free to submit a new complaint concerning this issue, a er having made the appropriate prior approaches to the Commission.
Pritožnik naj se glede tega vprašanja najprej obrne na Komisijo in potem še vedno lahko vloži novo pritožbo.
As regards the third issue, the Ombudsman regre4 ed the position that the Commission had adopted in this respect.
V zvezi s tretjim vprašanjem je varuh človekovih pravic izrazil obžalovanje zaradi ravnanja Komisije. Varuh je ponovil svoje stališče, da bi se Komisija v tem primeru morala opravičiti.
He took the view, however, that it would not be appropriate to make a special report to the European Parliament in this case.
Vseeno pa je menil, da v tem primeru ne bi bilo ustrezno pisati posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a critical remark.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato zaključil primer s kritično oceno.
Recovery of sums unduly paid to heir of a former o cial
Izterjava zneskov, neupravičeno plačanih dediču nekdanjega uslužbenca
Summary of decision on complaint 1617/2005/(BB)JF against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1617/2005/(BB)JF zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The complainant was the only heir of a former employee of the Commission who died in November 1998.
Pritožnik je bil edini dedič nekdanjega uslužbenca Komisije, ki je umrl novembra 1998.
In May 2003, the Commission asked the complainant to repay his father’s pension for the month of December 1998, which it had unduly paid.
Komisija je maja 2003 prosila pritožnika, da vrne očetovo pokojnino za mesec december 1998, ki jo je neupravičeno izplačala.
The complainant, although initially accepting to reimburse the sum in instalments, through a payment plan covering 12 months, alleged that it would be unfair for the Commission to enforce the recovery order.
Čeprav se je pritožnik sprva strinjal, da bo znesek vrnil v obrokih v skladu z 12-mesečnim načrtom za odplačilo, je trdil, bi bilo nepošteno, da Komisija zahteva izterjavo.
He argued that he had acted in good faith and that he was unaware of the amounts in the relevant bank account because of tragic circumstances, namely, multiple bereavements over a short time.
Navedel je, da je ravnal v dobri veri in da zaradi tragičnih okoliščin, in sicer več izgub ljubljenih oseb v kratkem času, ni opazil zneskov na zadevnem bančnem računu.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should cancel the said recovery order.
Pritožnik je trdil, da bi morala Komisija preklicati izrečeni nalog za izterjavo.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission took the view that the overpayment had been patently such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it, had he exercised ordinary care.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju o pritožbi zavzela stališče, da je bilo preplačilo tako očitno, da bi ga pritožnik vsekakor moral opaziti, če bi mu posvetil običajno pozornost.
It also considered that he could not invoke his good faith because he failed to respect the reimbursement plan established at his own request.
Menila je tudi, da se ne more sklicevati na svojo dobro vero, ker se ni držal načrta za odplačilo, ki je bil sestavljen na njegovo prošnjo.
85 of the Sta� Regulations.
Pritožnik je v pripombah razložil, da je spremenil svoje stališče glede izterjave, ko je izvedel, da lahko pristojni organ v skladu s členom 85 Kadrovskih predpisov odpiše dolg.
He emphasised that he was receiving unemployment benefit and would have liked the Commission to adopt a more humane and less mechanical approach to his case.
Poudaril je, da prejema nadomestilo za primer brezposelnosti in da si želi, da bi Komisija njegov primer obravnavala bolj človeško, ne tako rutinsko.
In his proposal for a friendly sol ution, the Ombudsman noted that the overpayment in question occurred as a result of an error by the Commission.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v predlogu sporazumne rešitve poudaril, da je bilo zadevno preplačilo posledica napake, ki jo je naredila Komisija.
The Ombudsman recognised that the Commission has a duty to recover sums unduly paid, in order to protect the financial interests of the Community.
Varuh človekovih pravic je priznal, da je Komisija dolžna izterjati neupravičeno izplačane zneske, da bi zavarovala finančne interese Skupnosti.
However, he also pointed out that, in some Member States, the public authorities responsible for taxes and benefits have, in consultation with the relevant national ombudsman, adopted policies to ensure that overpayments that result from o cial mistakes are not recovered unless it is fair and reasonable to do so.
Vendar pa je poudaril tudi, da so v nekaterih državah članicah javni organi, pristojni za davke in dajatve, v posvetovanju z ustreznim nacionalnim varuhom človekovih pravic sprejeli politiko, s katero naj bi zagotovili, da se preplačila, ki so posledica napak uslužbencev, ne izterjajo, razen če bi bila taka izterjava poštena in razumna.