natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Furthermore, the Commission did not grant access to the documents related to the Commission’s decision not to fi ll the post of SNE.
Poleg tega mu ni omogočila dostopa do dokumentov, povezanih z odločitvijo, da ne zasede delovnega mesta ONS.
The complainant also claimed a compensation of 100.000 € for the material and moral damage he alleged to have suffered. ered.
Pritožnik je tudi zahteval nadomestilo v višini 100.000 € za materialno in moralno škodo, ki jo je domnevno utrpel.
In its opinion, the Commission recalled the factual background of the complaint and made the following points:
Komisij a je v mnenju povzela dejstva, navedena v pritožbi in poudarila sledeče:
All candidates who applied for the post had been informed through a standard le er that their candidature had not been successful.
Vsi prijavljeni kandidati so bili s standardnim pismom obveščeni o neuspešni prijavi.
The Commission accepted that the information given in this le er was misleading for the complainant, who could have concluded that another candidate had been selected.
Komisij a je priznala, da je bila vsebina pisma zavajajoča, saj je pritožnik lahko iz nje sklepal o izbiri drugega kandidata.
However, in its le er of 13 March 2002, in reply to the complainant’s le er of 11 February 2002, the Commission’s services had provided the complainant with a detailed explanation concerning the decision not to fi ll the post of SNE.
Toda 13. marca 2002 je Komisij a v odgovoru na pismo z dne 11. februarja 2002, pritožniku podrobno obrazložila svojo odločitev, da mesta ONS ne zasede.
The complainant wrote a further le er on 2 April 2002, in which he stated that the advertisement of vacancy had created legitimate expectations to be chosen for the post.
Pritožnik je 2. aprila 2002 ponovno pisal Komisij i ter izjavil, da si je zaradi objave prostega mesta upravičeno ustvaril pričakovanja o morebitni izbiri.
He also stated that he had been informed that another candidate had been appointed.
Navedel je tudi, da je bil obveščen o imenovanju drugega kandidata na to mesto.
He therefore asked again to have access to the documents related to the decision not to fi ll the post of SNE.
Še enkrat je zaprosil za dostop do dokumentov, povezanih z odločitvijo o nezapolnjenem mestu ONS.
On 8 May 2002, the Commission’s responsible services replied to the complainant and confirmed the content of the le er of 13 March 2002.
Pristojne službe Komisij e so 8. maja 2002 odgovorile pritožniku in potrdile vsebino pisma z dne 13. marca 2002.
Furthermore, they added that the Commission could not be bound by the publication of a vacancy.
Dodale so, da objava prostega delovnega mesta Komisij e ne zavezuje k njegovi zapolnitvi.
The Director General of DG MARKT replied to this complaint on 4 September 2002.
Sklepi preiskav neuspešni prijavi obveščen le s standardnim pismom.
However, he also underlined that the information that the complainant’s data would be kept in the database of DG MARKT was correct.
Poudaril je tudi, da je bila navedba o ohranitvi pritožnikovih podatkov v podatkovni zbirki GD MARKT-a pravilna.
By le er of 7 October 2002, the complainant appealed against the reply to his complaint (A/330162) and made a request for access to certain documents.
V pismu z dne 7. oktobra se je pritožnik pritožil zaradi odgovora na svojo pritožbo (A/330162) in zahteval dostop do določenih dokumentov.
In his reply of 12 November 2002, the Secretary General of the Commission stated that, although he could accept that some deficiencies had occurred in the handling of the concerned procedure, they had been rectified by the explanation given to the complainant later on.
V odgovoru 12. novembra 2002 je generalni sekretar Komisij e sicer priznal nekatere napake v omenjenem postopku, vendar hkrati izjavil, da so bile te napake z obrazložitvijo pritožniku kasneje popravljene.
On 15 November 2002, DG MARKT provided the complainant with the following documents: a copy of a note from Mr M., Director General of DG MARKT, to Mr R., Director General of Directorate General Administration (DG ADMIN), of 24 October 2001, concerning the change in DG MARKT’s structure which resulted in the merging of Unit D/1 and D/2; a copy of a note from DG ADMIN to DG MARKT of 19 November 2001, transmi ing the three applications for the post of SNE in Unit D/1 and anonymised copies of the le ers to the two other candidates for the SNE post, identical to that sent to the complainant on 16 January 2002.
R., generalnemu direktorju generalnega direktorata uprave (GD ADMIN) z dne 24. oktobra 2001 glede prestrukturiranja GD MARKT-a, zaradi česar sta se združili enoti D/1 in D/2; kopij o obvestila GD ADMIN-a GD MARKT-u z dne 1. novembra 2001 s tremi prijavami za mesto ONS v enoti D/1 in anonimne kopij e pisem dvema preostalima kandidatoma za mesto OSN, identičnih pismu pritožniku z dne 16. januarja 2002.
As a general comment, the Commission accepted that the reply given to the complainant on 16 January 2002 failed to give the complainant a full and accurate account of the reasons why he had not been selected.
Komisij a je na splošno priznala, da je odgovor pritožniku z dne 16. januarja 2002 vseboval nepopolno in netočno razlago razlogov, zaradi katerih ni bil izbran.
The Commission had apologised already in its le er of 13 March 2002.
Za to napako se je opravičila že v pismu z dne 13. marca 2002.
Nevertheless, it underlined that the publication of a SNE vacancy cannot create a legitimate expectation on the part of applicants that they will be appointed.
Kljub temu je poudarila, da objava prostega mesta ONS ne more ustvariti upravičenega pričakovanja prijaviteljev, da bodo na to mesto tudi imenovani. ONS se financira iz proračunske postavke A-7003.
Each Directorate General is allocated a budgetary envelope which it manages in a decentralised manner.
Vsakemu generalnemu direktoratu se dodeli del proračunskih sredstev, s katerimi upravlja decentralizirano.
Decisions to create or to transfer SNE posts do not require any particular formality. The decision to recruit a SNE is normally taken on the basis of a request from the DG in question to Directorate General for Personnel and Administration.
Odločitev o ustanovitvi ali preusmeritvi mesta ONS ne zahteva posebnih formalnosti in se običajno sprejme na podlagi zahteve zadevnega GD-a generalnemu direktoratu za osebje in upravo.
In this particular case, since it was decided not to proceed to the recruitment, such a request was not made.
V tem primeru do zahteve ni prišlo zaradi odločitve o prekinitvi postopka zaposlitve.
Finally, the Commission stated that, as regards the registration number on the le ers sent to unsuccessful candidates for the post of SNE on 16 January 2002, it was unable to explain the existence of an identical registration number (238) for two of them.
Komisij a je nazadnje dodala, da v zvezi z registracijsko številko pisem, poslanih neuspešnim kandidatom za mesto ONS z dne 16. januarja 2002, ni mogoče obrazložiti obstoja identične registracijske številke (238) za dve od njih.
According to the Commission, the most probable explanation was that two of the le ers were presented for signature in the same fi le and the third (with registration number 240) in a separate one.
Po navedbah Komisij e je najverjetnejša razlaga, da sta bili pismi dani v podpis v istem spisu, tretje pismo (z registracijsko številko 240) pa v ločenem spisu.
In his observations, the complainant basically maintained his complaint.
Pritožnik je v pripombah vztrajal pri pritožbi.
Furthermore, he pointed out that it was unacceptable that the Commission had not been able to give a reasonable explanation of the reason why two of the le ers sent to the unsuccessful candidates on 16 January 2002 had the same registration number and the third one had a different number.
Poleg tega se mu je zdelo nesprejemljivo, da Komisij a ni bila zmožna podati razumljive razlage o tem, zakaj sta imeli pismi, poslani dvema neuspešnima kandidatoma dne 16. januarja 2002, isto registracijsko številko, tretje pismo pa različno številko.
The complainant took the view that this could be explained by the fact that the content of the le ers was not the same.
Po njegovem mnenju bi to lahko pomenilo, da vsebina pisem ni bila enaka.
He repeated the allegations he had made in his complaint and maintained his claim for compensation.
Ponovil je navedbe iz svoje pritožbe in vztrajal pri zahtevi po nadomestilu.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
V pismu z dne 10. novembra 2003 je Varuh prosil Komisij o za dostop do njenega spisa.
The Commission’s fi le contained relevant documents relating to the modification of DG MARKT’s organisation chart, documents relating to SNE posts in DG MARKT, the internal correspondence related to the case among different Commission services and the correspondence between the Commission and the complainant.
25. novembra 2003 so službe Varuha pregledale spis Komisije, ki je vseboval ustrezne dokumente v zvezi s spremembami organizacijske sheme GD MARKT-a, dokumente, povezane z mesti ONS v GD MARKT-u, notranje dopisovanje o primeru med različnimi službami Komisij e ter dopisovanje med Komisij o in pritožnikom.
Although they were not in the file, the Commission’s services provided the Ombudsman’s services with a list of SNE posts since the year 2000.
Službe Komisij e so službam Varuha dale tudi seznam mest ONS od leta 2000 naprej, ki ga v spisu ni bilo.
From this list, it appeared that no SNE had been recruited in unit D/1.
S seznama je bilo razvidno, da v enoti D/1 ni bil zaposlen noben ONS.
The Ombudsman’s services also received a copy of all outgoing le ers from DG MARKT of 16 January 2002, with registration numbers 238,239,240.
Službe Varuha so prejele tudi kopij o vseh odposlanih pisem iz GD MARKT-a dne 16. januarja 2002 z registracijskimi številkami 238, 239, 240.
However, a “gap” in the registration numbers as regards correspondence from one unit, or even from one official, may occur. The reason for this is that the whole DG uses the same ADONIS system, that is to say the same system of registration numbers.
Predstavniki Komisij e so glede teh dokumentov, ki bi se morali na zahtevo Komisij e obravnavati kot zaupni, pojasnili, da se za več odhodnih pisem na osnovi istega standardnega pisma z enakim besedilom uporabi ista registracijska številka.
This means that whenever someone registers an outgoing le er, the number next in line is taken.
Kljub temu se lahko pojavi vrzel med registracijskimi številkami pri dopisovanju z eno enoto ali celo z
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Sklepi preiskav enim uradnikom.
The Commission’s handling of the complainant’s application
Obravnava pritožnikove prijave s strani Komisij e
1.1 The complainant applied for a post of Seconded National Expert in DG MARKT, Unit D/1 “Free Movements of Goods”, following a notice of vacancy published by DG MARKT and circulated to the Commission’s Permanent Representations in September 2001.
1.1 Pritožnik se je prijavil za mesto odposlanega nacionalnega strokovnjaka v generalnem direktoratu za notranji trg, enota D/1 “Prosti pretok blaga”, potem ko je ta GD objavil prosto delovno mesto in septembra 2001 obvestilo razposlal stalnim predstavnikom Komisije.
By le er of 16 January 2002, he was informed that his application had not been successful.
V pismu 16. januarja 2002 je bil obveščen o neuspešnosti prijave. ave.
In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the European Commission had failed to follow principles of good administration when sending him the le er of 16 January 2002, because the information therein was incorrect.
V pritožbi je pritožnik navedel, da Evropska komisij a ni upoštevala načel dobrega upravljanja, ker mu je dne 16. januarja 2002 poslala pismo z netočno vsebino.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission accepted that the information given in the le er of 16 January 2002 had been misleading and that this le er could have led the complainant to think that another candidate had been selected to occupy the post of SND.
1.2 Komisij a je v svojem mnenju priznala, da je bila vsebina pisma z dne 16. januarja 2002 zavajajoča in da je pritožnik na njeni podlagi lahko sklepal o izbiri drugega kandidata za mesto ONS.
1.3 Principles of good administration require that the institutions should give clear and precise reasons for their decisions.
1.3 Načela dobrega upravljanja določajo, da morajo institucij e podati jasne in natančne razloge za svoje odločitve.
As regards the present case, the Commission accepted that its le er of 16 January 2002 was misleading for the complainant.
V tem primeru je Komisij a priznala, da je bilo pismo z dne 16. januarja 2002 za pritožnika zavajajoče.
However, the Ombudsman notes that in the le er of 4 September 2002 and then in its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Commission explained to the complainant the reasons why it had been decided not to fi ll the post of SNE and apologised for the misleading le er of 16 January 2002.
Varuh ugotavlja, da je Komisij a v pismu z dne 4. septembra 2002 in v mnenju Varuhu pritožniku pojasnila razloge za svojo odločitev o nezapolnjenem mestu ONS in se opravičila za zavajajoče pismo z dne 16. januarja 2002.
1.4 The inspection of the Commission’s fi le carried out by the European Ombudsman’s services has not revealed any elements that would call into doubt the Commission’s explanations.
1.4 Službe Evropskega varuha ob pregledu dokumentacije Komisij e niso našle ničesar, kar bi vzbudilo dvom o obrazložitvi Komisije. e.
1.5 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to inquire further into this aspect of the case.
1.5 Na podlagi zgoraj naštetih dejstev Varuh meni, da v tem pogledu ni potrebe po nadaljnji preiskavi zadevnega primera.
The complainant’s request for access to documents
Pritožnikova prošnja za dostop do dokumentov
2.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission did not give him access to the documents related to the Commission’s decision not to fi ll the post of SNE.
2.1 Pritožnik je v pritožbi navedel, da mu Komisij a ni omogočila dostopa do dokumentov, povezanih z odločitvijo Komisij e o nezapolnjenem mestu ONS.
2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that on 15 November 2002 DG MARKT forwarded to the complainant all the existing documents related to the concerned procedure, thus a copy of a note from Mr M., Director General of DG MARKT, to Mr R., Director General of Directorate General Administration (DG ADMIN), concerning the change in DG MARKT’s structure which resulted in the merging of Unit D/1 and D/2, a copy of a note from DG ADMIN to DG MARKT of 19 November 2001, transmi ing the three applications for the post of SNE in Unit D/3 and anonymised copies of the le ers to the two other candidates for the SNE post, identical to that sent to the complainant on 16 January 2002.
R., generalnemu direktorju GD ADMIN-a o prestrukturiranju GD MARKT-a, zaradi česar sta se združili enoti D/1 in D/2, kopij o note GD ADMIN-a, s katero je 19. novembra 2001 GD MARKT posredoval tri prijave za mesto ONS v enoti D/3 in anonimni kopij i pisem obema drugima kandidatoma za mesto ONS, identičnimi pismu, poslanemu pritožniku 16. januarja 2002.
2.3 The Ombudsman’s services carried out an inspection of the Commission’s file.
2.3 Službe Varuha so pregledale spis Komisije.
No wri en decision by the Commission concerning the decision not to fi ll the post of SNE was found in the Commission’s file.
V njem niso našle nobene pisne izjave Komisij e glede odločitve o nezapolnjenem mestu ONS.
It further appeared that there were no other documents related to this decision apart from the documents the Commission had disclosed to the complainant.
Nadalje so ugotovile, da poleg dokumentov, ki jih je Komisij a dala v vpogled pritožniku, ni nobenih drugih dokumentov, povezanih s to odločitvijo.
The inspection also showed that the anonymised copies of le ers the complainant had received corresponded to the le ers that the Commission had sent to the other two candidates.
Preiskava je pokazala tudi, da sta anonimni kopij i pisem, ki jih je prejel pritožnik, ustrezali pismoma, ki jih je Komisij a poslala dvema drugima kandidatoma.
2.4 On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that there has been no maladministration by the Commission in relation to this aspect of the case of the case.
Na podlagi tega Varuh v tem pogledu ni našel nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komisije. e.
The complainant’s claim for compensation
Zahteva pritožnika po nadomestilu
The complainant claimed a compensation of 100.000 € for the material and moral damage.
Pritožnik je zahteval nadomestilo v višini 100.000 € za materialno in moralno škodo.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
LETNO POROČILO 2003
3.3 In view of the above conclusions regarding the complainant’s allegations, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not provided any evidence to establish the damage which the misleading le er of 16 January 2002 had allegedly caused him.
3.3 Ob upoštevanju zgoraj naštetih dejstev o navedbah pritožnika Varuh meni, da pritožnik ni zbral dovolj dokazov za oceno škode, ki mu jo je domnevno povzročilo zavajajoče pismo z dne 16. januarja 2002.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
Na podlagi preiskave o pritožbi Varuh ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri ravnanju Komisij e in s tem zaključuje primer.
ACCESS TO MARKED EXAMINATION SCRIPTS IN COMPETITIONS ORGANISED BY THE COMMISSION
DOSTOP DO OCENJENIH PISNIH TESTOV IZ IZBIRNIH POSTOPKOV KOMISIJ E
Decision on complaint 324/2003/MF against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi št. 324/2003/MF zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman on 7 February 2003.
Pritožnik je vložil pritožbo pri Evropskem varuhu 7. februarja 2003.
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:
Pritožnik navaja naslednja dejstva:
He took part in competition COM/C/1/01 published in the Official Journal No C 251A of 11 September 2001 and organised by the European Commission in order to constitute a reserve list of clerical assistants in the field of fi financial management and accounting.
Sodeloval je v izbirnem postopku COM/C/1/01, objavljenem v Uradnem listu C 251A z dne 11. septembra 2001. Izbirni postopek je organizirala Evropska komisij a, da bi lahko sestavila rezervni seznam pisarniških pomočnikov s področja finančnega poslovodenja in računovodstva.
He passed the preselection tests and participated in the wri en tests.
Opravil je predizbirne teste in sodeloval pri pisnih testih.
In a le er dated 13 December 2002, the Commission informed the complainant that he was not admi ed to the oral examination because he had obtained only 17 out of 40 points in test d) when the minimum required was 20 points.
Komisij a je v pismu z dne 13. decembra 2002 pritožnika obvestila, da ni sprejet na ustno preverjanje znanja, ker je dosegel le 17 od 40 točk v testu d), medtem ko je bilo najmanjše zahtevano število točk 20.
By email dated 18 December 2002, the complainant requested from the Commission the copy of his marked examination paper and the corrected version of the wri en examination in order to know
Pritožnik je po elektronski pošti dne 18. decembra 2002 zaprosil Komisij o za kopij o njegovega ocenjenega testa in popravljeno različico pisnega testa, da bi tako ugotovil, kakšne napake je naredil.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
Komisij a je 10. januarja 2003 pritožniku poslala kopij o njegovega ocenjenega pisnega testa brez popravkov, skupaj z ocenjevalno polo.
Decisions following an inquiry the errors he had made. On 10 January 2003, the Commission sent to the complainant the copy of his wri en paper, without any corrections, together with the evaluation sheet.
Pritožnik je po elektronski pošti dne 16. januarja 2003 Komisij o obvestil, da je zaprosil za kopij o svojega ocenjenega testa in da je prejel le kopij o svojega pisnega testa brez popravkov.
By le er of 29 January 2003, the Commission replied that it had disclosed all the information relating to the wri en tests that was accessible to the candidates.
Komisij a mu je s pismom dne 29. januarja 2003 odgovorila, da mu je dala na voljo vse podatke o pisnih testih, ki so dostopni kandidatom.
On 7 February 2003, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.
Pritožnik je 7. februarja 2003 vložil pritožbo pri Evropskem varuhu.
He alleged that the European Commission had failed to disclose his own marked examination paper concerning competition COM/C/1/01.
Trdil je, da mu Evropska komisij a ni razkrila njegovega ocenjenega testa iz izbirnega postopka COM/C/1/01.
He further alleged that the documents sent by the European Commission, namely the evaluation sheet and the examination paper without any corrections, did not enable him to know the errors he had made.
Prav tako je trdil, da iz dokumentov, ki mu jih je poslala Evropska komisij a, namreč iz ocenjevalne pole in testa brez popravkov, ni bilo razvidno, kakšne napake je naredil.
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was, in summary, as follows:
Povzetek mnenja Evropske komisij e o pritožbi:
The Commission
Sklepi preiskav
ANINQUIRY argued that the access to the marked examination scripts had been made possible only a er the adoption of legal and administrative arrangements.
Komisij a je potrdila, da se je s pismom, ki ga je predsednik Prodi poslal Evropskemu varuhu 7. decembra 1999, zavezala, da bo kandidatom na zahtevo omogočila dostop do ocenjenih pisnih testov, in sicer za izbirne postopke, objavljene po 1. julij u 2000.31
The procedure adopted consisted in the draing of a provisional evaluation sheet containing the remarks and the proposed marking of each examiner for each part of the tests.
Sprejeti postopek je vključeval pripravo začasne ocenjevalne pole z opombami in predlagano oceno vsakega ocenjevalca za vsak posamezni del testa.
The Selection Board then set the final mark, added its own assessment on the evaluation sheet and signed it.
Izbirna komisij a je nato sestavila končno oceno, dodala svojo oceno na ocenjevalno polo in jo podpisala.
Such an evaluation sheet could be disclosed to candidates on request.
Taka ocenjevalna pola je bila na razpolago kandidatom na njihovo zahtevo.
Test d) of competition COM/C/1/01 consisted of a case study to assess the specialised knowledge and organisational and administrative skills of the candidates in the field of financial management and accounting.
Test d) iz izbirnega postopka COM/C/1/01 je bil študij a primera z namenom ugotovitve strokovnega znanja, organizacijskih in upravnih spretnosti kandidatov na področju finančnega poslovodenja in računovodstva.
Following the wri en tests, all the examination scripts were corrected anonymously by two examiners at least, in accordance with criteria established beforehand by the Selection Board.
Po zaključku pisnih testov sta vse teste anonimno popravila vsaj dva ocenjevalca v skladu s prej določenimi kriteriji izbirne komisije.
The la er then checked the correct application of these criteria and reviewed the remarks and assessments made by the examiners.
Izbirna komisij a je nato preverila pravilno uporabo teh kriterijev in pregledala opombe ter ocene ocenjevalcev.
The Selection Board finally set the final marks, which were communicated to the candidates.
Nato je sestavila končne ocene, ki so jih sporočili kandidatom.
Concerning the allegation of the complainant that the documents sent by the Commission, namely the evaluation sheet and the examination paper without any corrections, did not enable him to know the errors he had made, it must be stated that the examination scripts of the candidates who had sat the wri en tests did not contain any annotations.
V zvezi s trditvijo pritožnika, da iz dokumentov, ki mu jih je poslala Komisij a, namreč iz ocenjevalne pole in testa brez popravkov, ni mogel ugotoviti, kakšne napake je naredil, je treba pojasniti, da pisni testi kandidatov niso vsebovali opomb.
Such annotations made by the examiners were wri en down in the provisional evaluation sheet in accordance with the procedure described above.
Tovrstne opombe so ocenjevalci napisali na začasno ocenjevalno polo v skladu z zgoraj opisanim postopkom.