natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the complaint to the Ombudsman, the association demanded unrestricted access to the report.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je v odloÏbi podal mnenje, da je pravica državljana, da zahteva dostop do neobjavljenega dokumenta in da se pritoži na morebitno zavrnitev potrdilne prošnje, osnovni mehanizem Uredbe št. 1049/2001 za zagotavljanje Ïim širšega dostopa do dokumentov.
The Commission justified its refusal to disclose certain parts of the report on the basis of Articles 4(2), third indent and 4(3), first subparagraph, of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents11 and argued that the public interest in disclosure of these parts did not outweigh the risk of aTecting the ongoing investigation and the discussions with the Greek authorities.
Zato je menil, da bi bilo nesorazmerno in nepraktiÏno priÏakovati od Komis`e, da izvede enako podrobno pravno analizo, kadar se odloÏa za objavo zakonskega dokumenta v spletu in kadar obravnava potrdilno prošnjo za dostop javnosti do dokumenta.
Taking into account that the inspection report in question was a document drawn up for internal use by the Commission and that it related to an ongoing procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission could reasonably take the view that it was entitled to refuse access on the basis of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001, subject to the question of a possible overriding public interest in disclosure.
Izrazil je oceno, da je Komis` a dejansko preuÏila, ali naj omogoÏi dostop do zadevnih dokumentov v spletu.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Pritožnik je poleg tega izkoristil pravico do zahteve za dostop in tudi možnost potrdilne prošnje, zato je varuh ocenil, da nadaljnja preiskava v zvezi z njegovimi obtožbami ni upraviÏena.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 glede dostopa javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
The Ombudsman then examined in detail the arguments that the complainant had put forward to demonstrate an overriding public interest in disclosure, considering that one of the arguments was relevant only to Article 4(2) and the other only to Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001.
Nato je natanÏno preuÏil razloge, s katerimi je pritožnik želel opozoriti na prevladujoÏi javni interes za razkritje, glede na to, da se je en razlog nanašal le na Ïlen 4(2) in drugi le na prvi pododstavek Ïlena 4(3) Uredbe št. 1049/2001.
The Ombudsman did not find the complainant’s argument relating to Article 4(3) convincing and therefore found that the Commission was entitled to rely on that exception.
Ocenil je, da je razlog pritožnika, ki se navezuje na Ïlen 4(3), neprepriÏljiv, zato je menil, da se lahko Komis` a upraviÏeno sklicuje na to izjemo.
As regards the argument relating to Article 4(2), the Ombudsman considered that its evaluation would necessitate an inspection by the Ombudsman of the document in question.
V zvezi z razlogom, ki se nanaša na Ïlen 4(2), pa je varuh menil, da bi lahko oceno podal le po pregledu zadevnega dokumenta.
However, given his conclusion that the Commission could rely on Article 4(3), first subparagraph, the Ombudsman decided not to delay a decision on the case in order to inspect the document.
Vendar se je na podlagi ugotovitve, da se Komis` a lahko sklicuje na prvi pododstavek Ïlena 4(3), odloÏil, da sklepa ne bo odložil, da bi lahko dokument pregledal.
The Ombudsman thus found no maladministration by the Commission.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic tako ni ugotovil nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komis` e.
REPLACEMENT OF PROJECT DIRECTOR IN HONDURAS
ZAMENJAVA DIREKOTORJA PROJEKTA V HONDURASU
Summary of decision on complaint 3110/2004/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3110/2004/GG zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, who worked for a German consultancy firm, had been the director of an EU-funded project for repairing and improving the infrastructure of towns in Central America that had been hit by hurricane “Mitch”.
Pritožnik, ki je delal za nemško svetovalno podjetje, je bil direktor projekta EU za obnovo in izboljšanje infrastrukture mest v Srednji Ameriki, ki jih je prizadel orkan Mitch.
At the request of the Commission’s Delegation in Managua, he was replaced by another person.
Na zahtevo delegac`e Komis` e s sedežem v Managui so ga zamenjali.
He also alleged that the Commission had acted in a discriminatory way, by only examining the problem of the use of service cars in his project. The private use of service cars had always been tolerated in other projects.
Navedel je še, da je Komis` a ravnala diskriminac`sko, ko je uporabo službenih vozil v zasebne namene preiskala le v njegovem projektu, Ïeš da je bila v drugih projektih vedno dovoljena. Pritožnik je menil, da je bila zahteva Komis` e za njegovo zamenjavo neupraviÏena in neutemeljena.
According to the Commission, the delays from which the project had s u T ered had been caused both by the complainant’s excessive zeal for perfection and by his failure to respect the Commission’s tender procedure and instructions on several occasions.
Po navedbah Komis` e je do zamud pri projektu prihajalo zaradi pretirane želje pritožnika, da bi bilo vse narejeno popolno, in zato, ker v veÏ primernih ni upošteval razpisnih postopkov Komis` e in njenih navodil.
Moreover, the complainant’s performance had not been up to the expected standard.
Poleg tega naj bi bila delovna uÏinkovitost pritožnika pod priÏakovanji.
The Delegation had observed that the tense relationship between the complainant and his subordinate had had serious adverse implications for the functioning of the project.
Delegac`a je ocenila, da imajo napeti odnosi med pritožnikom in njegovim podrejenim zelo resne posledice za delovanje projekta.
Concerning the use of service cars for private purposes, the Commission pointed out that the relevant rules clearly stated that the vehicles were only to be used for work purposes.
Kar zadeva uporabo službenih vozil v zasebne namene, je Komis` a poudarila, da pravila izrecno dovoljujejo uporabo vozil le za službene namene.
Despite repeated instructions by the Delegation, this had not been respected in the present case.
Teh pravil se v obravnavanem primeru kljub veÏkratnim opozorilom delegac`e ni spoštovalo.
However, in a further remark, the Ombudsman added that he would find it most useful, and in keeping with principles of good administration, if the Commission could consider re-examining this issue in so far as the other contracts in the same programme were concerned.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
The Commission further informed the Ombudsman that following his observation and, in the interests of fairness, it had decided to carry out additional verifications on fi ve projects being implemented in Honduras.
Kar zadeva pritožnikove obtožbe o diskriminac`i, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic na podlagi sodne prakse sodišÏ Skupnosti menil, da dejstvo, da so druge osebe službena vozila nezakonito uporabljale v zasebne namene, ne da bi jih Komis` a ustavila, še ne pomeni, da Komis` a v pritožnikovem primeru ni ravnala ustrezno.
The European Commission and the Council of the European Union
Evropska komis` a in Svet Evropske un`e e
ALLEGED LACK OF PARKING SPACES FOR DISABLED PEOPLE NEAR COMMISSION AND COUNCIL BUILDINGS
NEZADOSTNO ŠTEVILO PARKIRNIH MEST ZA INVALIDNE OSEBE V BLIŽINI STAVB KOMISIJE IN SVETA
Summary of decisions on complaint 2415/2003/JMA against the Commission and complaint 237/2004/JMA against the Council of the EU
Povzetek odloÏb o pritožbi 2415/2003/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o in pritožbi 237/2004/JMA proti Svetu EU
The complainant alleged that the Commission and the Council had failed to take the necessary steps to ensure a s u U cient number of parking spaces for people with disabilities near the main Commission and Council buildings in Brussels.
Pritožnik je navedel, da Komis` a in Svet nista sprejela ustreznih ukrepov, da bi zagotovila zadovoljivo število parkirnih mest za invalidne osebe v bližini svojih stavb v Bruslju.
The Commission explained that all its buildings in Brussels have at least two parking spaces reserved for disabled people.
Komis` a je pojasnila, da imajo vse njene stavbe v Bruslju vsaj dve parkirni mesti, rezervirani za invalidne osebe.
Spaces for disabled visitors can be made available upon request.
Parkirna mesta za invalidne obiskovalce je mogoÏe dobiti na posebno zahtevo.
Parking spaces reserved for disabled people in the streets near its buildings in Brussels are the exclusive responsibility of the Belgian authorities.
Mesta, rezervirana za invalidne osebe na ulicah v bližini stavb Komis` e v Bruslju, pa so v izkljuÏni pristojnosti belg`skih oblasti.
Since only four of the 60 Commission buildings in Brussels have parking spaces for disabled people, the institution had asked the local authorities to take additional measures.
Ker imajo parkirna mesta za invalidne osebe le štiri od šestdesetih stavb Komis` e v Bruslju, je instituc` a mestne oblasti pozvala, naj sprejmejo dodatne ukrepe.
The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s request to the Belgian authorities to ensure additional parking places for disabled people near its buildings in Brussels and invited the Commission to keep him informed of the results of this initiative.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pozdravil prošnjo za dodatna parkirna mesta za invalide, ki jo je Komis` a naslovila na belg`ske oblasti, in Komis` o prosil, naj ga obvešÏa o rezultatih pobude.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission, in its 2000 Communication on a barrier-free Europe for people with disabilities, had agreed to develop and support a comprehensive and integrated strategy to tackle social, architectural and design barriers that unnecessarily restrict access for people with disabilities.
Kot je ugotovil varuh, je Komis` a v sporoÏilu iz leta 2000 o Evropi brez omejitev za invalidne osebe privolila v razvoj in podporo obsežne in celostne strateg`e za reševanje družbenih, arhitekturnih in oblikovnih pregrad, ki invalidom po nepotrebnem omejujejo dostop.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that the Commission had not yet adopted the necessary follow-up measures.
Ob tem je opomnil, da Komis` a še ni sprejela potrebnih nadaljnjih ukrepov.
In view of the information available, the Ombudsman did not consider it justified to pursue further inquiries.
Iz razpoložljivih podatkov pa ni ocenil, da bi bilo preiskavo upraviÏeno nadaljevati.
He recalled that, in the framework of his ongoing own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2003, he was reviewing the more general issue of the Commission’s integration of persons with disabilities and that accessibility to the Commission’s premises by disabled people travelling by car should constitute an element of that inquiry.
Opomnil je, da v potekajoÏi preiskavi na lastno pobudo OI/3/2003 bolj na splošno preuÏuje, kako Komis` a invalidom omogoÏa vkljuÏevanje, tako da je tudi njihov dostop do objektov Komis` e z avtomobilom del te preiskave.
The Council explained that all its buildings in Brussels have a number of parking spaces reserved for its disabled staT although, for security reasons, those parking facilities cannot be made available to the public.
Svet je pojasnil, da imajo vse njegove stavbe v Bruslju doloÏeno število parkirnih mest, rezerviranih za zaposlene invalidne osebe, vendar iz varnostnih razlogov ta mesta ne morejo biti dostopna javnosti.
The institution explained that its services had contacted the competent Belgian authorities and asked them to establish a number of additional parking spaces near all its buildings in Brussels to be reserved for disabled people.
Po pojasnilih Sveta so njegove službe stopile v stik s pristojnimi belg`skimi oblastmi in jih prosile za dodelitev dodatnih parkirnih prostorov za invalidne osebe v bližini njegovih stavb v Bruslju.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY reconsider its position, with a view to allowing reserved parking spaces on its premises to be used by all persons with disabilities who have legitimate reasons to enter the Council’s premises.
Varuh je na Svet naslovil še dodatno pripombo, v kateri je podvomil o njegovi politiki omejevanja dostopa do parkirnih mest za invalidne osebe iz varnostnih razlogov. Poudaril je, da druge instituc` e EU, med njimi Komis` a, izvajajo drugaÏno politiko, pri Ïemer se varnost ne zdi ogrožena.
The European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO)
Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)
CANDIDATES’ ACCESS TO EVALUATION CRITERIA
DOSTOP KANDIDATOV DO OCENJEVALNIH MERIL
Summary of decision on complaint 2097/2003/(ADB)PB against the European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO)
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2097/2003/(ADB)PB zoper Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)
The complainant participated in a competition held to establish a reserve list of German-speaking typists.
Pritožnica je sodelovala v nateÏaju za uvrstitev na rezervni seznam nemških strojepiscev.
Having failed to obtain the pass mark, the complainant requested more information on the evaluation of her test.
Potem ko ni prejela zadostne ocene za uvrstitev, je zahtevala podrobnejše podatke o ocenjevanju preskusa. V pritožbi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je navedla, da je EPSO ni obvestil o merilih, ki jih je upošteval pri ocenjevanju.
She stated that she wanted access so as to be able to improve her performance in future recruitment competitions.
Dejala je, da je želela biti z njimi seznanjena, da bi lahko izboljšala svoje rezultate v prihodnjih nateÏajih za zaposlitev.
EPSO argued that the evaluation criteria were covered by the secrecy referred to in Article 6 of Annex III of the StaT Regulations and that, according to established case-law, the duty to give reasons for recruitment decisions was satisfied by communicating the marks to the applicant.
EPSO je odgovoril, da so merila ocenjevanja tajna, kot doloÏa Ïlen 6 priloge 3 kadrovskih predpisov, in da je v skladu s sodno prakso svoje odloÏitve o zaposlovanju dolžan utemeljiti le s sporoÏilom kandidatu o njegovi oceni.
The Ombudsman examined the relevant case-law and noted that allowing access to evaluation criteria appeared to be consistent with the European Union’s policy and legislation on transparency and public access to documents, which has developed significantly since the case-law referred to by EPSO.
Varuh je preuÏil zadevno sodno prakso in ocenil, da se zdi omogoÏanje vpogleda v merila ocenjevanja v skladu s politiko in zakonodajo EU o preglednosti in javnem dostopu do dokumentov, ki sta se že precej oddaljili od sodne prakse, na katero se je skliceval EPSO.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that EPSO had failed to give adequate reasons for refusing access.
Zato je menil, da EPSO svoje zavrnitve vpogleda ni ustrezno utemeljil.
The Ombudsman made a draW recommendation, according to which EPSO should reconsider its refusal to give the complainant access to the evaluation criteria and give access unless valid grounds prevented their disclosure.
Oblikoval je osnutek priporoÏila in EPSO pozval, naj ponovno preuÏi odloÏitev, da pritožnici ne dovoli vpogleda v merila ocenjevanja, in naj ji, razen v primeru utemeljenih razlogov za nerazkritje, vpogled omogoÏi.
In its detailed opinion on the draW recommendation, EPSO stated that the evaluation criteria laid down by the Selection Board could be separated from the various instructions, recommendations and opinions that are given to the individual evaluators.
V podrobnem mnenju o osnutku priporoÏila je EPSO dejal, da bi se dalo merila ocenjevanja, ki jih oblikuje naborna komis` a, loÏiti od razliÏnih navodil, priporoÏil in mnenj, ki jih prejmejo posamezni ocenjevalci.
However, in order to allow the complainant in this case to bemer understand the marks that she had been given, EPSO enclosed a copy of the complainant’s examination paper containing the evaluators’ handwrimen notes.
Vendar je zato, da bi pritožnica bolje razumela ocene, v pojasnilo priložil njen preskus z roÏno napisanimi opombami ocenjevalca.
In a separate note, EPSO also made detailed remarks on those corrections, explaining the test requirements.
V posebnem sporoÏilu je podal podrobnejša pojasnila v zvezi s popravki in ob tem razložil zahteve preskusa.
It also pointed out that the assessment of the mistakes appearing on the examination paper was contained in the evaluation sheet, a copy of which had already been sent to the complainant.
Prav tako je poudaril, da so bile napake, ki jih je pritožnica naredila, opredeljene na ocenjevalni poli, ki je bila pritožnici že poslana.
The Ombudsman took the view that the much more detailed information provided by EPSO in this case should normally help a candidate bemer to understand the marks that he or she had been given and that there were therefore no grounds for continuing his inquiry in this specific case.
Varuh je menil, da precej podrobnejši podatki, ki jih je EPSO posredoval v drugem primeru, kandidatu pomagajo pri razumevanju ocene, zato v tem primeru ni veÏ razlogov za nadaljnjo preiskavo.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that EPSO’s opinion raised important factual and legal issues of a more general nature.
Je pa opozoril, da je mnenje, ki ga je podal EPSO, naÏelo nekatera pomembna konkretna in pravna vprašanja bolj splošne narave.
He therefore decided to launch an own-initiative inquiry into the issue of granting candidates access to the evaluation criteria established by selection boards.
Zato se je odloÏil, da v zvezi z vpogledom kandidatov v merila ocenjevanja naborne komis` e sproži preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
The Ombudsman also closed, on the same basis, his inquiries into two similar cases in which draW recommendations had been made to EPSO: 413/2004/PB and 2028/2003/PB.
Varuh je na enaki podlagi zakljuÏil tudi preiskavi dveh podobnih primerov, v katerih je za EPSO oblikoval osnutek priporoÏila, in sicer primerov 413/2004/PB in 2028/2003/PB.
The own-initiative inquiry announced by the Ombudsman was opened on 10 October 2005 (OI/5/05/PB).
Napovedano preiskavo na lastno pobudo je varuh zaÏel 10. oktobra 2005 (OI/5/05/PB).
The results of the inquiry will be published on the Ombudsman’s website.
Rezultati bodo objavljeni na njegovem spletnem mestu.
ADMISSION TO SELECTION TESTS
SPREJEM NA IZBIRNE TESTE
Summary of decision on complaint 839/2004/MHZ against the European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO)
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 839/2004/MHZ» zoper Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)
A Hungarian citizen applied to take part in an open competition for assistant translators organised by EPSO.
Madžarski državljan se je pr`avil na javni nateÏaj EPSO za pomoÏnike prevajalcev.
He stated in his application form that he would obtain the required diploma a few months a W er the registration date.
V pr`avi je navedel, da bo diplomo, ki je bila pogoj za udeležbo na nateÏaju, prejel nekaj mesecev po pr`avi.
When he was invited to am end the pre-selection tests, he believed that EPSO had accepted his application.
Ko je prejel vabilo k sodelovanju v predizbirnem preskusu, je bil prepriÏan, da je EPSO njegovo pr`avo sprejel. Predizbirni preskus je uspešno opravil in je bil povabljen k pisnim testom.
However, a few months later EPSO informed him that he had been excluded from the selection because he did not have the required diploma on the application date.
Vendar je nekaj mesecev zatem od EPSO prejel obvestilo, da je bil izkljuÏen iz nadaljnjega izbora, kar na dan pr`ave še ni imel zahtevane diplome.
For that reason, his wrimen tests were not evaluated.
Zaradi tega se njegovega pisnega preskusa ni ocenilo.
The complainant alleged that it was unfair for EPSO to exclude him from the selection procedure a W er having accepted his application and a W er having allowed him to participate in the pre-selection and wrimen tests.
Pritožnik je menil, da ga EPSO ne bi smel izkljuÏiti iz postopka izbire, potem ko je že sprejel njegovo pr`avo in mu dovolil, da se udeleži predizbirnega in pisnega preskusa.
At the date of the complaint, the complainant was neither a citizen of the Union nor residing in a Member State.
Na dan pritožbe pritožnik ni bil državljan EU in ni bival v državi Ïlanici.
Since he considered that the subject mamer of the complaint should be examined, the Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry.
Varuh je zato sprožil preiskavo na lastno pobudo, ker je menil, da bi bilo treba zadevo preuÏiti.
EPSO subsequently informed the Ombudsman that it would be willing for the case to be dealt with as a complaint, given that the complainant had become an EU citizen through the accession of Hungary to the EU.
EPSO je pozneje varuha obvestil, da bi se lahko primer obravnaval kot pritožba, glede na to, da je pritožnik s pristopom Madžarske postal državljan EU.
EPSO explained that, according to the notice of competition, the Selection Board could decide whether the complainant had fulfilled the requirement in question only a W er it had examined the complainant’s full application.
EPSO je pojasnil, da lahko naborna komis` a v skladu z obvestilom o nateÏaju sprejme odloÏitev, ali pritožnik izpolnjuje zahtevane pogoje, šele ko pregleda popolno vlogo.
Such an application was requested from candidates only a W er they had successfully passed the pre-selection tests.
To pa so kandidati predložili šele, ko so uspešno opravili predizbirne preskuse.
EPSO referred to the case-law of the Court of First Instance, according to which the notice of competition can determine that certain specific eligibility requirements are to be verified a W er the marking of the pre-selection tests.
EPSO se je skliceval na sodno prakso SodišÏa prve stopnje, v skladu s katero je lahko v sporoÏilu o nateÏaju predvideno, da se bo nekatere pogoje za izbor preverjalo po oceni predizbirnega preskusa.
Since EPSO appeared to have acted in accordance with the notice of competition and had taken into account the relevant case-law, the Ombudsman found no maladministration.
Ker je EPSO oÏitno deloval v skladu z obvestilom o nateÏaju in upošteval sodno prakso, varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
However, the Ombudsman made a further remark suggesting that, to avoid possible misunderstandings and to improve relations with candidates, EPSO could consider explicitly stating in future notices of competition that (i) an invitation to am end the pre-selection tests does not imply that the eligibility of the candidate has been fully checked and (ii) the wrimen tests of candidates who are subsequently found to be ineligible will not be marked.
Je pa podal dodatno pripombo, da naj ESPO, da bi se izognil morebitnim nesporazumom in izboljšal odnose s kandidati, v prihodnjih objavah nateÏajev izrecno navede, (i) da vabilo k predizbirnim preskusom, ki ga prejme kandidat, še ne pomeni, da je bilo v celotni preverjeno, ali kandidat ustreza pogojem, ter (ii) da se pisnih preskusov kandidatov, ki ne ustrezajo pogojem, ne bo ocenjevalo.
By lemer of 14 September 2005, EPSO informed the Ombudsman that future notices of competition would mention the two points raised by the Ombudsman in his further remark.
EPSO je v pismu 14. septembra 2005 varuha obvestil, da bo v prihodnjih obvestilih o nateÏaju navedel pravili, na kateri je varuh opozoril v dodatni pripombi.
INFORMATION CONCERNING A POSSIBLE INTERVENTION BY THE ECB
PODATKI O MOREBITNEM POSEGU ECB
Summary of decision on complaint 3054/2004/TN against the European Central Bank
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3054/2004/TN zoper ECB
The complainant alleged that the ECB had failed to explain its reasons for not answering his question as to whether it had intervened in the foreign exchange markets to so W en the fall of the dollar and the rise in value of the euro.
Pritožnik je trdil, da ECB ni pojasnila, zakaj ne želi odgovoriti na vprašanje, ali je posredovala na deviznih trgih, da bi ublažila padec vrednosti dolarja in rast vrednosti evra.