natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Communication describes the actions which the Commission will take in this regard as well as the contributions sought from, inter alia, Member States.
Sporočilo govori o dejavnosti Komisije v tej zvezi in tudi o želenih prispevkih držav članic.
It sets out four main areas of action: more targeted preventive measures; improved information-provision and problem-solving; a more e cient management of infringement cases to ensure the greatest benefit to the greatest number; and increased transparency.
Določa štiri glavna področja delovanja: bolj usmerjene preventivne ukrepe; izboljšano posredovanje informacijin reševanje problemov; učinkovitejše upravljanje primerov kršitev za zagotovitev največje ugodnosti za največje število oseb; in izboljšano preglednost.
One of the most important suggestions in the Communication concerns an exercise in which Member States’ authorities would, in certain cases, be asked to find solutions for problems
Eden izmed najpomembnejših predlogov Sporočila se nanaša na vajo, v kateri bi organe držav članic v nekaterih primerih zaprosili, naj rešijo probleme v zvezi s pravom Skupnosti v kratkem
RELATIONS WITH OMBUDSMEN ANDSIMILARBODIES concerning Community law within a short period of time (8 weeks) and, respond directly to persons who have raised an issue with the Commission.
ODNOSIZ VARUHIČLOVEKOVIHPRAVICINPODOBNIMI ORGANI roku (v osmih tednih) in posredujejo odgovore neposredno osebam, ki so sprožile vprašanje na Komisiji.
The objective is to find faster solutions to enquiries and complaints from citizens and companies.
Cilj vaje je najti hitrejše rešitve na poizvedbe in pritožbe državljanov in podjetij .
In his keynote speech, Mr NYMAND-CHRISTENSEN gave further details of this proposal, which is of particular relevance to ombudsmen in the Member States.
NYMAND-CHRISTENSEN je v svojem osrednjem nagovoru dodatno pojasnil ta predlog, ki je posebnega pomena za varuhe človekovih pravic v državah članicah.
He informed them that Member States had shown great interest in participating in this pilot project, which is scheduled to last for one year.
Obvestil jih je, da so države članice pokazale veliko zanimanje za sodelovanje v tem poskusnem projektu, ki bo predvidoma trajal eno leto.
The Commission will then produce a report outlining its experience.
Nato bo Komisija pripravila poročilo o svojih izkušnjah.
Thematic session two: The relationship between ombudsmen and the courts
Tematsko srečanje 2: Odnos med varuhi človekovih pravic in sodišči
Mr Mats MELIN, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman of Sweden, launched the discussions in this session.
Razpravo na srečanju je odprl Mats MELIN, glavni parlamentarni varuh človekovih pravic na Švedskem.
He began by looking into the competence of ombudsmen to supervise the courts, something that varies greatly from one country to another.
Na začetku je predstavil pristojnosti varuhov človekovih pravic pri nadzorovanju dela sodišč, ki so zelo različne po posameznih državah.
While acknowledging that the role of courts needs to be recognized as being of special importance in a state governed by the rule of law, he argued that there is a need for some element of supervision in their regard.
Čeprav je priznal, da moramo videti vlogo sodišč v pravni državi kot posebno pomembno, je dejal tudi, da obstaja potreba po določenem nadzoru nad njimi.
He examined how members of the judiciary tend to view the ombudsman in a system such as that in Sweden, where the ombudsmen do supervise the courts.
Govoril je o tem, kako pripadniki sodne veje oblasti dojemajo varuha človekovih pravic na primeru sistema, kot je švedski, kjer varuhi človekovih pravic resnično nadzirajo delovanje sodišč.
He looked at the di� erent roles of courts and ombudsmen and spoke of the possibility of conflicts between them on specific points of law.
Opozoril je na različne vloge sodišč in varuhov človekovih pravic ter nakazal možnosti za spore med njimi glede posameznih pravnih vprašanj.
He ended by asking how ombudsmen handle situations where their interpretation of the law di� ers from that of a court, especially a court of last instance.
Sklenil je s vprašanjem, kako varuhi človekovih pravic ravnajo v primeru, kadar si razlagajo pravo drugače kot sodišče, še posebno sodišče najvišje stopnje.
Mr Marc FISCHBACH, National Ombudsman of Luxembourg, and Mr Janusz KOCHANOWSKI, Commissioner for Civil Rights Protection of Poland, were the discussants in this session, which was chaired by Mr Allar JÕKS, Legal Chancellor of Estonia.
Na tem srečanju, ki mu je predsedoval Allar JÕKS, estonski varuh človekovih pravic, sta razpravljala Marc FISCHBACH, nacionalni varuh človekovih pravic v Luksemburgu, in Janusz KOCHANOWSKI, varuh človekovih pravic na Poljskem.
Mr FISCHBACH started out by informing his colleagues that citizens frequently refer problems they have with the courts to the Ombudsman of Luxembourg.
FISCHBACH je svojo predstavitev začel z obvestilom kolegom, da se v Luksemburgu državljani pogosto obračajo na varuha človekovih pravic za probleme, ki jih imajo s sodišči.
The issue, he said, is to clearly grasp the limits to any intervention by the ombudsman, for whilst ombudsmen must uphold the legitimate principle of independence of the judiciary, they must also guarantee the rights of parties to a trial or court hearing.
Dejal je, da je bistvo problema v jasnem dojemanju omejitev posredovanja varuha človekovih pravic, kajti čeprav mora podpirati legitimno načelo neodvisnosti sodne veje oblasti, mora hkrati zagotavljati pravico do sojenja ali sodne obravnave.
In his view, ombudsmen are required to distinguish between justice on the one hand — in other words the sovereign exercise of the duty to dispense justice — and judicial administration on the other, judicial administration meaning any administrative mechanism that operates before or a er a judicial decision.
Po njegovem mnenju morajo biti varuhi človekovih pravic sposobni razlikovati med pravico na eni strani – z drugimi besedami, suverenim izvrševanjem dolžnosti deljenja pravice – in sodno upravo na drugi strani, pri čemer mislimo na kateri koli upravni mehanizem, ki deluje pred sodno odločbo ali po njej.
Although the ombudsman cannot interfere in the exercise of the sovereign function of the magistrate, he has the power to deal with any administrative failing of the judicial administration.
Čeprav varuh človekovih pravic ne sme posegati v izvrševanje suverene funkcije sodnega organa, je pristojen, da obravnava katero koli upravno napako sodne uprave.
Mr FISCHBACH concluded by saying that it might be more accurate to talk about the relationship between the ombudsman and the judicial administration, rather than of any relationship that might exist between the ombudsman and the courts.
FISCHBACH je sklenil s tezo, da bi bilo verjetno pravilneje govoriti o odnosu med varuhom človekovih pravic in sodno upravo kot o kakršnem koli odnosu, ki utegne obstajati med varuhom človekovih pravic in sodišči.
Mr KOCHANOWSKI, for his part, identified a dual-track approach.
KOCHANOWSKI pa je svoji predstavitvi govoril o dvotirnem pristopu.
On the one hand, the Polish Commissioner involves himself in cases of individual citizens, where in his opinion the judgments issued infringe the rights of the individual.
Po eni strani se poljski varuh človekovih pravic ukvarja s posameznimi primeri državljanov, v katerih po njegovem mnenju izdane sodbe posegajo v pravice posameznika.
On the other hand, he takes on cases of a more general nature, o en in an a4 empt to improve the functioning of the administration of justice, for example by initiating changes in the law or aiming to clarify controversial issues in judicial decisions.
Po drugi strani pa se ukvarja s splošnejšimi primeri, pogosto za izboljšanje delovanja uprave sodnega sistema, na primer s sprožanjem predlogov za spremembe določenega zakona ali pojasnitve spornih vprašanj v sodnih odločbah.
That is why the Commissioner, respecting in full the independence of the courts and the adversarial nature of civil proceedings, takes advantage of his entitlement to take cases before the courts with great caution.
Zato varuh človekovih pravic ob polnem upoštevanju neodvisnosti sodišč in kontradiktorne narave pravdnih postopkov izkorišča svojo pravico do uvedbe postopkov pred sodišči z veliko obzirnostjo.
He supports a party only if he sees that the person applying for help is not capable of defending his rights by himself or when the case may lead to a breakthrough, helping to resolve other similar cases where the rights of individuals are threatened.
Stranko podpira le, če vidi, da oseba, ki potrebuje pomoč, ni sposobna samostojno zagovarjati svoje pravice ali ko bi primer lahko pripeljal do pomembnega preboja in pomagal rešiti druge podobne primere, v katerih so ogrožene pravice posameznikov.
Thematic session three: Remedies, redress and solutions: what do ombudsmen have to o� er?This session was chaired by Mr Peter KOSTELKA of the Austrian Ombudsman Board.
Tematsko srečanje 3: Pravna sredstva, poprava krivic in rešitve: kaj lahko ponudijo varuhi človekovih pravic?
Ms Ann ABRAHAM, United Kingdom Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, was the main speaker in this session.
Ann ABRAHAM, parlamentarna varuhinja človekovih pravic za zdravstvo v Združenem kraljestvu, je bila glavna govornica na tem srečanju.
She tackled the question of remedy by considering the ombudsman fi first as a system of justice — the source of direct benefit to aggrieved citizens.
Predstavila je vprašanje pravnega sredstva ob upoštevanju varuha človekovih pravic predvsem kot pravosodnega organa – izvora neposrednih koristi za oškodovane državljane.
She then went on to consider the way in which remedy, conceived as something more than just financial redress or dispute resolution, points towards the larger role of the ombudsman as a source of wider public benefit — public benefit that comes from the promotion of good administration and good complaint handling and of improvements in public service delivery, but that also harbours the ambition of
Nato je predstavila tako pravno sredstvo, ki je v osnovi več kot le finančna poprava krivic ali rešitev spora, kar kaže na široko vlogo varuha človekovih pravic kot izvora širše javne koristi – javne koristi, ki izhaja iz spodbujanja dobrega upravljanja in dobre obravnave pritožb ter izboljšanja ponudbe javnih storitev, ob tem pa pomeni tudi zametek želje po dviganju zavesti o javnih politikah. ABRAHAMOVA je predstavila nazorne primere preiskav, ki jih je opravil njen
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 informing public policy.
LETNO POROČILO 2007 urad, na področju upravljanja s sistemom davčnih oprostitev v Združenem kraljestvu.
By way of example, Ms ABRAHAM drew upon investigations undertaken by her o ce into the administration of the United Kingdom tax credit system.
Svojo predstavitev je sklenila s prikazom okvira načel, ki ga je začela razvijati z objavo sklopov načel dobrega upravljanja in načel odprave krivic.
Ms Zdenka ČEBAŠEK-TRAVNIK, Human Rights Ombudsman of Slovenia, and Mr Arne FLIFLET, Parliamentary Ombudsman of Norway, followed up to help launch the discussions in this session.
Sledila sta prispevka Zdenke ČEBAŠEK TRAVNIK, varuhinje človekovih pravic v Sloveniji, in Arneja FLIFLETA, parlamentarnega varuha človekovih pravic na Norveškem, s katerima se je odprla splošna razprava na tem srečanju.
Ms ČEBAŠEK-TRAVNIK outlined the many di� erent influences on the ombudsman’s mode of action, addressing them along the following lines: society and culture; the political system; international connections; actual problems in the country; and personal characteristics of the ombudsman.
ČEBAŠEK TRAVNIKOVA je opozorila na vrsto različnih stvari, ki vplivajo na način delovanja varuha človekovih pravic, in jih tudi podrobneje predstavila: družbo in kulturo; politični sistem; mednarodne povezave; aktualne probleme v državi; in osebnostne poteze varuha človekovih pravic.
She illustrated her thesis with a concrete example of a sensitive problem handled by her o ce concerning a Roma family in Slovenia.
To tezo je ponazorila na konkretnemu primeru občutljivega problema, s katerim se je ukvarjal njen urad, in sicer v zvezi z romsko družino v Sloveniji.
Mr FLIFLET pointed to the fact that ombudsmen — among themselves — have very di� erent backgrounds, personalities and jurisdictions and that this obviously a� ects the work they do.
FLIFLET je opozoril na dejstvo, da imajo varuhi človekovih pravic zelo različne strokovne izkušnje, osebnosti in pristojnosti in da to jasno vpliva na njihovo delo.
He underlined the supplementary role of the ombudsman vis-à-vis the courts in o� ering a much wider variety of remedies, redress and solutions.
Poudaril je dopolnilno vlogo varuha človekovih pravic nasproti sodiščem, saj imajo na voljo dosti širši nabor pravnih sredstev, poprav krivic in rešitev.
Thematic session four: Free movement of persons: what are the problems and how do ombudsmen deal with them?
Tematsko srečanje 4: Prost pretok oseb: opredelitev problemov in kako jih varuhi človekovih pravic obravnavajo?
The purpose of this final session, which was chaired by the National Ombudsman of Spain, Mr Enrique MÚGICA HERZOG, was to illustrate concretely the contribution that ombudsmen can make in resolving citizens’ EU law complaints.
Namen tega sklepnega srečanja, ki mu je predsedoval španski nacionalni varuh človekovih pravic Enrique MÚGICA HERZOG, je bil nazorno prikazati možen prispevek varuhov človekovih pravic k reševanju pritožb državljanov glede prava Evropske unije.
Mr Jean-Paul DELEVOYE gave the opening speech for this session.
To srečanje je z uvodnim govorom odprl Jean-Paul DELEVOYE.
He began by tracing the evolution of the right to freedom of movement from the 1950s to the present day.
Začel je s prikazom razvoja pravice do prostega gibanja od 50. let 20. stoletja do danes.
He then went on to outline some of the obstacles to mobility, a fact confirmed, he said, by the very low proportion of complaints about the subject that are made to his own o ce.
Nato je predstavil nekaj ovir za mobilnost, za katere je dejal, da vendarle obstajajo, čeprav pomenijo zelo majhen odstotek vseh pritožb, ki jih prejme.
He pointed out that complaints of this nature are likely to increase in the coming years, however, and underlined the important role that ombudsmen can play.
Vendar pa je poudaril, da bo število pritožb te vrste v prihodnje verjetno naraščalo, in poudaril, da bo vloga varuhov človekovih pravic verjetno zelo pomembna.
He concluded by emphasising the need for ombudsmen to work together to resolve complaints in the area of freedom of movement e� ectively.
V sklepu je poudaril potrebo po sodelovanju med varuhi človekovih pravic za učinkovito reševanje pritožb pri prostem pretoku oseb.
Ms Eliana NICOLAOU, Commissioner for Administration of Cyprus, followed up as the first discussant.
Zatem je razpravo povzela Eliana NICOLAOI, ciprska komisarka za upravo.
In her view, the full implementation and the realisation of the right to free movement is one of the greatest challenges for ombudsmen as they strive to create a genuine mobility culture in the EU with full respect for human rights.
Menila je, da sta popolno izvajanje in uresničenje pravice do prostega gibanja med glavnimi izzivi varuhov človekovih pravic pri njihovem prizadevanju za vzpostavitev pristne kulture mobilnosti v Evropski uniji ob polnem spoštovanju človekovih pravic.
She gave examples of problematic areas in Cyprus, specifically in the area of mutual recognition of diplomas.
Navedla je primere problematičnih področijna Cipru, predvsem pri medsebojnem priznavanju diplom.
Mr Yorgos KAMINIS, National Ombudsman of Greece, continued with a number of examples from his own country.
Sledil je Yorgos KAMINIS, grški nacionalni varuh človekovih pravic, in predstavil vrsto primerov iz svoje države.
He argued that pressure applied within certain professions, and political pressure — most notably at the municipal level — made it di cult for EU citizens to exercise their professions in Greece.
Trdil je, da so pritiski v določenih poklicih in politični pritiski – večinoma na občinski ravni – tisti, ki otežujejo svobodno opravljanje poklica državljanom Evropske unije v Grčiji.
The Ombudsman has an important role to play in helping these citizens enjoy their rights under EU law in relation to freedom of movement.
Varuh človekovih pravic ima pomembno vlogo pri pomoči tem državljanom v zvezi z uživanjem njihovih pravic glede prostega pretoka oseb, ki jih zagotavlja pravo Evropske unije. e.
In addition to the four thematic sessions, the seminar included an in-depth discussion on an issue of fundamental importance to the Network, namely the European Network of Ombudsmen Statement.
Poleg štirih tematskih srečanj je bila del seminarja tudi poglobljena razprava o zadevi, ki je temeljnega pomena za mrežo, to je o izjavi Evropske mreže varuhov človekovih pravic.
The European Ombudsman had o� ered at the Fi h National Ombudsmen Seminar that was held in The Hague in September 2005 to dra a Statement to inform citizens and other users of ombudsman services of the benefits that they can expect to obtain when they turn to a member of the Network about a ma4 er that falls within the scope of EU law.
Na petem seminarju nacionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic, ki je potekal v Haagu septembra 2005, se je evropski varuh človekovih pravic ponudil, da pripravi osnutek izjave, s katero bi seznanili državljane in druge uporabnike storitev varuha človekovih pravic o prednostih, ki jih prinaša posvetovanje s članom mreže o zadevi, ki spada v okvir prava Evropske unije.
The dra Statement was circulated to members of the Network before the Seminar.
Osnutek izjave so razdelili članom mreže pred začetkom seminarja.
The discussion on the Statement was based on a keynote speech given by the world’s longest-serving national ombudsman, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Denmark, Mr Hans GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN.
Razprava o izjavi je potekala na podlagi osrednjega nagovora nacionalnega varuha človekovih pravic z najdaljšim stažem na svetu, parlamentarnega varuha človekovih pravic na Danskem Hansa GAMMELTOFT-HANSENA.
He emphasised that the purpose of the discussions was to adopt a statement aimed at citizens, which in the briefest and simplest possible form, adequately covers those fundamental features which unite ombudsmen in Europe and are common to them all.
V svojem nagovoru je poudaril, da je bil namen razprav sprejeti izjavo, ki bi bila usmerjena na državljane in ki bi najkrajše in najpreprosteje ustrezno obravnavala tiste temeljne lastnosti, ki družijo varuhe človekovih pravic po Evropi in ki so jim skupne.
Mr GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN encouraged his colleagues to adopt the dra Statement.
GAMMELTOFT-HANSEN je pozval svoje kolege, naj sprejmejo osnutek izjave.
A er a lively discussion, the Statement was adopted by consensus.
Po živahni razpravi je bila izjava soglasno sprejeta.
The European Ombudsman announced his commitment to promoting awareness of the Statement and called on his colleagues to do likewise.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je oznanil, da se zavezuje k spodbujanju osveščanja o tej izjavi in pozval kolege, naj mu sledijo.
The Statement, which is reproduced in full below, will be reviewed on a regular basis.
Izjava, katere celotno besedilo najdete spodaj, bo redno pregledovana.
In addition to the stimulating formal sessions, the Seminar allowed for more informal discussions and contacts.
Poleg spodbudnih formalnih srečanj je bil seminar tudi priložnost za neformalnejše pogovore in srečanja.
The guided tour of Strasbourg added to the overall enjoyment of the event, as did the formal dinner which took place in the impressive Palais Rohan and which included a fi 4 ing tribute to the Danish Ombudsman to mark his twenty years in o ce.
Vodeni ogled Strasbourga je veliko prispeval k splošnemu zadovoljstvu z organizacij o dogodka, prav tako pa tudi uradna večerja v impresivni palači Rohan, kjer so primerno proslavili dvajset let opravljanja funkcije danskega varuha človekovih pravic.
The ombudsmen expressed their gratitude to the Mayor of Strasbourg for having welcomed them to the city and for the hospitality she had provided.
Varuhi človekovih pravic so se zahvalili županji Strasbourga za sprejem, ki so ga bili deležni in gostoljubnost, s katero jih je sprejela.
At the end of the Seminar, it was announced that the Seventh Seminar of National Ombudsmen of EU Member States and Candidate Countries would take place in Cyprus in 2009.
Ob koncu seminarja so objavili, da bo sedmi seminar nacionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic držav članic Evropske unije in držav kandidatk leta 2009 na Cipru.
Participants at the Sixth Seminar of National Ombudsmen of EU Member States and Candidate Countries. Strasbourg, 15 October 2007.
Udeleženci šestega seminarja nacionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic držav članic EU in držav kandidatk. Strasbourg, 15. oktobra 2007.
The European Network of Ombudsmen
Evropska mreža varuhov človekovih pravic
Statement adopted at the Sixth Seminar of the National Ombudsmen of EU Member States and Candidate Countries, Strasbourg 14-16 October 2007
Izjava, sprejeta na šestem seminarju nacionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic držav članic EU in držav kandidatk v Strasbourgu od 14. do 16. oktobra 2007
The European Network of Ombudsmen has prepared this statement to make the European Union (EU) dimension of the work of ombudsmen better known and to clarify the service they provide to people who complain about matters within the scope of EU law.
Evropska mreža varuhov človekovih pravic je pripravila to izjavo, da bolje predstavi razsežnost dela varuhov človekovih pravic v Evropski uniji (EU) in da pojasni storitve, ki jih zagotavljajo ljudem, ki se pritožujejo o zadevah s področja uporabe zakonodaje EU.
National and regional ombudsmen make a vital contribution to ensuring that citizens and residents of the EU can know and enjoy their rights.
Nacionalni in regionalni varuhi človekovih pravic bistveno prispevajo k zagotavljanju, da lahko državljani in osebe s stalnim prebivališčem v EU poznajo in uživajo svoje pravice.
Together with the European Ombudsman, they form the European Network of Ombudsmen.
Skupaj z Evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic sestavljajo Evropsko mrežo varuhov človekovih pravic.
The European Network of Ombudsmen brings together, on a voluntary basis, the national and regional ombudsmen and similar bodies of the Member States of the European Union, the national ombudsmen of the candidate countries and of Iceland and Norway, as well as the European Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic na prostovoljni ravni povezuje vse nacionalne in regionalne varuhe človekovih pravic in podobne organe držav članic EU, nacionalne varuhe držav kandidatk, Islandije in Norveške ter Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic in odbora za peticije Evropskega parlamenta.
In Germany, committees on petitions at the national and regional level full a similar role to ombudsmen.
V Nemčiji imajo odbori za peticije na državni in regionalni ravni podobno vlogo kot varuh človekovih pravic. So del mreže.
EU law and policy have an increasing impact on the everyday life of citizens and residents of the Member States.
Zakonodaja in politika EU imata vedno večji vpliv na vsakodnevno življenje državljanov in oseb s stalnim prebivališčem v državah članicah.
For the most part, they are put into e ect by the public authorities of the Member States.
Večinoma jih izvajajo organi oblasti držav članic.
National and regional ombudsmen deal with complaints against public authorities of the Member States, including complaints that relate to activities that are within the scope of EU law.
Nacionalni in regionalni varuhi obravnavajo pritožbe proti organom oblasti držav članic, skupaj s pritožbami, ki zadevajo dejavnosti v okviru zakonodaje EU.
The European Ombudsman supervises the EU institutions, such as the European Commission.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic nadzira institucije EU, kot je Evropska komisija.