natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman, recalling Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, which provides that decisions should be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen, considered that, in principle, citizens should be provided with the information that they request concerning decisions made by Community institutions and bodies.
SklicujoÏ se na Ïlen 1 Pogodbe o Evropski un`i – ta pravi, da je treba odloÏitve sprejemati karseda javno in blizu državljanom – je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da bi morali državljanom zahtevane informac` e o odloÏitvah instituc` in organov Skupnosti naÏeloma posredovati.
In those situations where it is not possible to provide the requested information, the Ombudsman considered that the institution or body refusing the request should give the citizen s u U ciently specific reasons to show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning behind its refusal.
V primeru, ko teh informac` ni mogoÏe posredovati, pa bi po varuhovem mnenju morala instituc` a ali organ, ki prošnjo zavrne, državljanu za svojo odloÏitev ponuditi dovolj utemeljene razloge.
The Ombudsman noted that the case-law of the Community courts consistently applies this approach in relation to the handling of requests for access to documents. In certain cases, however, the case-law shows that reasoning by reference to categories of document may be s u U cient.
Varuh je dejal, da se sodna praksa sodišÏ Skupnosti pri obravnavi zahtev za dostop do dokumentov dosledno drži omenjenega naÏela, vendarle v nekaterih zadevah kaže, da kot utemeljitev zadostuje že navedba kategor`e dokumenta.
The Ombudsman took the view that the ECB’s reasons for its refusal to disclose the requested information met the required legal standard in that they showed clearly and unequivocally the ECB’s reasoning and enabled the complainant to understand why the ECB refused to divulge the requested category of information.
Varuh je ocenil, da je ECB ponudila jasno in nedvoumno razlago za zavrnitev razkritja zahtevane informac`e, ki je ustrezala zakonskim merilom in ki jo je pritožnik lahko razumel.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the ECB.
Zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri delovanju ECB.
The Ombudsman noted that the ECB’s decision concerning public access to documents provides for an exception to protect the public interest as regards “monetary and exchange rate stability”.
Varuh je menil, da odloÏitev ECB pri vprašanjih javnega dostopa do dokumentov vkljuÏuje izjemo, katere cilj je varovati javni interes, kar zadeva „monetarno stabilnost in menjalni teÏaj”.
The Ombudsman therefore found no reason to pursue the complainant’s claim.
Zato se ni odloÏil za nadaljnjo preiskavo.
Summary of decision on complaint 127/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Parliament
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 127/2004/OV (zaupno) zoper Evropski parlament
This transfer should, in theory, have provided her with a pension of more than 70% of her final salary in grade B3. The Pensions Service informed her, however, that her pension would be just under 65%.
Po tem prenosu bi morala biti upraviÏena do pokojnine, ki bi znašala veÏ kot 70 % njene konÏne plaÏe v razredu B3, služba za pokojnine pa jo je obvestila, da bo njena pokojnina nekoliko nižja kot 65 % te plaÏe.
The complainant’s appeal under Article 90(2) of the StaT Regulations was rejected and the appointing authority informed her that, in fact, no Italian pension rights had been transferred.
PritožniÏina pritožba po Ïlenu 90(2) kadrovskih predpisov je bila zavrnjena in pristojni organ jo je obvestil, da ital`anske pokojninske pravice niso bile prenesene.
The complainant claimed that (i) the determination of her pension rights should be revised and the pension rate should be fixed at 70% of her final B3 salary and that (ii) the surplus of her pension rights transferred from Italy (1995) and Germany (1997) should be reimbursed to her.
Pritožnica je zahtevala, (i) da se njene pokojninske pravice znova opredel`o in da se doloÏi pokojninska stopnja 70 % konÏne plaÏe v razredu B3 ter (ii) da se ji presežek pokojninskih pravic, prenesenih iz Ital`e (1995) in Ne m Ï ` e (1997), povrne.
The Council of the European Union
Svet Evropske un`e e
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AT EU POLICE MISSION
PRENEHANJE POGODBE O ZAPOSLITVI PRI POLICLSKI MISLI EU
Summary of decision on complaint 471/2004/OV against the Council of the European Union
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 471/2004/OV zoper Svet Evropske un`e e
In June 2003, the complainant made a first complaint to the Ombudsman (case 1200/2003/OV) concerning the termination of his contract as a civilian IT expert in the European Union Police Mission in Sarajevo (EUPM) as of 8 December 2002.
Jun` a 2003 je pritožnik podal prvo pritožbo Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic (primer 1200/2003/OV), ker je z 8. decembrom 2002 prenehala veljati njegova pogodba o zaposlitvi na delovnem mestu civilnega strokovnjaka za informac`sko tehnolog`o pri polic`ski mis`i Evropske un`e v Sarajevu (EUPM). V odloÏbi o primeru (glejte Letno poroÏilo 2003) je varuh ocenil, da je bila kršena pravica pritožnika do obrambe.
The Ombudsman suggested that the complainant address the Council directly with his claims that the Council should clear him of the allegations against him and that he should receive his salary for the month of December 2002.
Predlagal je, da pritožnik zahtevo, naj Svet prekliÏe vse obtožbe proti njemu in mu izplaÏa preostanek plaÏe za december 2002, naslovi neposredno na Svet.
As the Council rejected both claims on the ground that it was not involved in his dismissal, the complainant made a new complaint to the Ombudsman in February 2004.
Ker je Svet zavrnil obe zahtevi, Ïeš da ni bil vpleten v njegovo odpustitev, je pritožnik februarja 2004 na Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic naslovil novo pritožbo.
The Council emphasised that its Secretariat-General had done its utmost to co-operate with the Ombudsman and had sent a copy to the EUPM of all the correspondence exchanged, in order to enable the EUPM also to co-operate with the Ombudsman.
Svet je poudaril, da je njegov generalni sekretariat storil vse, kar je bilo v njegovi moÏi, da bi sodeloval z varuhom, in da je polic`ski mis`i EUPM poslal kop` e vseh dopisov, da bi tudi njim omogoÏil takšno sodelovanje.
AWer receiving an opinion from the head of the EUPM, the Ombudsman informed the Council that his critical remark in case 1200/2003/OV implied that the EUPM was not entitled to terminate the complainant’s contract early and that the complainant’s claim to be paid to the end of his contract therefore appeared to be justified The Ombudsman requested the Council’s assistance to ensure that the complainant received the full salary due.
Potem ko je prejel mnenje vodje EUPM, je varuh obvestil Svet, da njegova kritiÏna ocena v primeru 1200/2003/OV pomeni, da EUPM ni bil upraviÏen predÏasno odpovedati pogodbe o zaposlitvi in da je pritožnikova zahteva, da se mu izplaÏa plaÏa za celotno pogodbeno obdobje, zato utemeljena. Varuh je Svet prosil, naj poskrbi za to, da bo pritožnik prejel še preostalo plaÏo, do katere je upraviÏen.
In its reply, the Council recalled that, under Article 9 of the Joint Action of March 2002 on the EUPM, payments shall be made through the authority of the Head of the EUPM.
EUPM je nato obvestil varuha, da bo pritožniku izplaÏal preostanek plaÏe za obdobje od 9. do 31. decembra 2002 ter tako konÏal postopek, ki ga je sprožil pritožnik.
The EUPM subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, in order to bring the process initiated by the complainant to a close, it would pay the complainant a proportion of his former monthly salary to cover the period from 9 to 31 December 2002.
Kar zadeva zahtevo pritožnika, naj Svet prekliÏe vse obtožbe proti njemu, pa je varuh opomnil, da v skladu z naÏelom pravne države ugotovitve dejstva, Ïe je bila pri tem kršena pravica do zagovora, niso veljavne.
In his decision, the Ombudsman considered that this aspect of the case had been semled to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je Komis` a na njegovo prvo prošnjo za dokumente z dne 22. marca v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in
As regards the complainant’s claim that the Council should clear him of all allegations against him, the Ombudsman recalled that, in accordance with the principle of the rule of law, the normal position is that findings of fact made in violation of the right to be heard have no validity.
Komis` a se je opraviÏila za zamudo in obrazložila, da je do nje prišlo zaradi poveÏanega obsega dela.
The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant was therefore entitled to regard the Ombudsman’s earlier finding in case 1200/2003/OV as clearing his name and that no further inquiries into this aspect of the case were justified. ed.
Navedla je še, da je sprejela splošno pravilo, da bo bolj sistematiÏno obvešÏala državljane, kadar odgovor zaradi kompleksnosti ali nepriÏakovane poplave vprašanj morda ne bo poslan v predpisanem roku.
The European Commission
Varuh je primer zakljuÏil z dodatno pripombo, da si bo Komis` a gotovo prizadevala, da bi v prihodnje izpolnjevala svoje obveznosti.
UNJUSTIFIED DELAY AND FAILURE TO REPLY TO PUBLIC ACCESS REQUEST
ZAVRNITEV ZAHTEVE ZA DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV
Summary of decision on complaint 1798/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3381/2004/TN zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant alleged that there had been unjustified delays in the Commission’s reply to his first application of 22 March 2004 for documents under Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to
Komis` a je zavrnila zahtevo pritožnice za dostop do svoje korespondence z oblastmi Velike Britan`e v zvezi z omenjeno zadevo, Ïeš da bi razkritje teh dokumentov ogrozilo namen inšpekc`, preiskav in reviz` (Ïlen 4(2) Uredbe št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e13). e13).
Parliament, Council and Commission documents12 and that the Commission had failed to reply to his application of 26 May 2004.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pritožbo posredoval Komisiji in hkrati pisal stalnemu predstavniku Združenega kraljestva pri EU, ali bi oblasti Združenega kraljestva nasprotovale razkritju teh dokumentov.
The Commission apologised for the delays and explained that these had been due to a heavy workload.
V svojem mnenju je Komis` a obrazložila, da je bila njena odloÏitev, da na tej stopnji postopka dokumentov ne bo razkrila, skladna z upoštevno sodno prakso.
The complainant stated that he accepted the Commission’s apologies and considered his case to be semled.
Po nadaljnji preiskavi je Komis` a privolila, da bo pritožniku omogoÏila tudi dostop do treh CD-ROM-ov s podatki, ki jih je prejela od oblasti Združenega kraljestva v zagovor v postopku po Ïlenu 226. Ker je Komis` a zadevo rešila v korist pritožnika, je Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic primer zakljuÏil.
REFUSAL OF A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
POVRAJILO POTNIH STROŠKOV IN STROŠKOV NAMESTITVE
Summary of decision on complaint 3381/2004/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3485/2004/OV zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, a United Kingdom residents’ association, had made an Article 226 complaint to the Commission concerning the United Kingdom authorities’ alleged failure to follow Community legislation as regards a large landfill site near the residents’ homes.
Pritožnik se je v javnem izbirnem postopku COM/A/12/01 udeležil dveh razgovorov v Ital`i 15. in 16. januarja 2004, nato pa je na uradnem obrazcu zaprosil za povraÏilo potnih stroškov in stroškov namestitve.
The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission and at the same time wrote to the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU to ask whether the United Kingdom authorities would object to the release of the documents.
Jeprav je v letu 2004 Komis` o trikrat opomnil, naj mu stroške povrne, tega ni storila.
In its opinion, the Commission argued that its decision not to disclose the documents at that stage of the proceedings was consistent with the relevant case-law.
Pritožnika je obvestila, da je njegov zahtevek za povraÏilo prejela in da je v postopku obdelave.
However, following the formal closure
Ker pritožnik do novembra 2004 stroškov ni dobil povrnjenih, se je pritožil Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY of the file, the Commission had decided to release its two lemers addressed to the United Kingdom authorities regarding the mamer.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES
POVRAJILO POTNIH STROŠKOV
Summary of decision on complaint 501/2005/IP against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 501/2005/IP zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, an Italian cultural Association, claimed that the Commission should honour a promise to reimburse it for travel expenses related to a visit to the Commission.
Pritožnica, ital`anska kulturna zveza, je trdila, da bi morala Komis` a izpolniti svojo obljubo, da bo povrnila potne stroške za obisk pri njej.
The Commission stated that its Representation in Italy had not made the necessary arrangements by preparing a commitment for the sum in question (EUR 5 500) in due time. As a result, the Commission had been unable to honour the oral promise to pay the expenses.
Komis` a je trdila, da njeno predstavništvo v Ital`i ni pravoÏasno uredilo vsega potrebnega za prevzem obveznosti za zadevni znesek (5 500 EUR), zato ni mogla izpolniti ustne obljube, da bo poravnala stroške. V želji, da bi ohranila ugled, in ker je njeno predstavništvo v Ital`i naznanilo, da namerava instituc` a stroške poravnati, pa je v ta namen dodelila znesek 5 500 EUR.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he considered his case to have been semled and the Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Pritožnik je obvestil Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic, da je po njegovem mnenju zadeva rešena, zato je varuh primer zakljuÏil.
ALLEGED LATE PAYMENTS TO COMMISSION EVALUATORS
DOMNEVNA ZAPOZNELA PLAJILA OCENJEVALCEM KOMISL E
Summary of decision on complaint 1266/2005/MF against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1266/2005/MF zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, a German science journalist, worked as an independent expert evaluating calls for proposals published under the Sixth Framework Programme.
Pritožnik, nemški znanstveni novinar, je kot neodvisni strokovni sodelavec vrednotil razpise za zbiranje predlogov, objavljene v šestem okvirnem programu.
He alleged that the Commission had (i) failed to pay him in due time for his evaluation assignments carried out in 2004, (ii) failed to give him clarification on the calculation of payments and (iii) failed to pay interest on account of late payment.
Trdil je, da mu Komis` a (i) ni pravoÏasno plaÏala dela, opravljenega leta 2004, (ii) da mu ni pojasnila, kako je izraÏunala znesek plaÏila, in (iii) da mu ni izplaÏala obresti, nastalih zaradi zamude pri plaÏilu.
The complainant claimed that he should, by 31 March 2005 at the latest, be paid for his evaluation assignment carried out in early October 2004.
Pritožnik je še trdil, da bi moral plaÏilo za vrednotenje, opravljeno v zaÏetku oktobra 2004, prejeti najpozneje do 31. marca 2005 in da je upraviÏen do zamudnih obresti zaradi zapoznelega plaÏila, prejetega leta 2004 za neko drugo delo.
He further claimed that he should
Zahteval je tudi pojasnilo o izraÏunu izplaÏanih zneskov od leta 2004.
ANNUAL REPORT 2005
Maja 2005 je sprejela še akc`ski naÏrt za pospešitev plaÏil izvedencem.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY be paid interest, on account of late payment, as regards the payment received in 2004 for another assignment.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik ocenil, da je Komis` a izboljšala postopke za povraÏilo stroškov, in se strinjal z njenim predlogom o izplaÏilu zamudnih obresti.
The complainant finally claimed that he should be given clarification on the calculation of payments since 2004.
Poudaril je še, da je plaÏilo po najnovejši pogodbi prejel v 30 dneh.
The Commission also proposed to pay the complainant an amount corresponding to the interest due on account of late payment in relation to his assignment of early October 2004.
Na podlagi mnenja Komis` e in pripomb pritožnika je Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic sklenil, da je Komis` a zadevo rešila v korist pritožnika, zato je primer zakljuÏil.
In May 2005, the Commission had taken measures, which were summarised in an action plan, to accelerate payments to experts.
LETNO POROČILO 2005
He therefore closed the case.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
FRIENDLY SOLUTIONS ACHIEVED BY THE OMBUDSMAN
SPORAZUMNE REŠITVE, KIJIHJE DOSEGELEVROPSKI VARUH JLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
ACCESS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT’S PREMISES
DOSTOP DO PROSTOROV EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
Summary of decision on complaint 628/2004/OV against the European Parliament
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 628/2004/OV zoper Evropski parlament
The complainant found this exclusion to be discriminatory, as no such restriction is imposed on temporary agents, seconded national experts or accredited lobbyists from private companies.
Menil je, da gre za diskriminac`o, saj takšna omejitev za zaÏasne uslužbence, dodeljene nacionalne strokovnjake in akreditirane lobiste iz zasebnih podjet` ne velja.
Parliament stated that it grants access to oUcials of other EU institutions upon presentation of their badge but that this facility is not extended to all the other agents of the institutions, since to do so would substantially increase the number of potential visitors to Parliament.
Parlament je pojasnil, da je uradnikom drugih instituc` EU dostop dovoljen z izkaznico, vendar ta možnost ni na voljo vsem preostalim uslužbencem teh instituc` , saj bi tako število obiskovalcev Parlamenta bržkone korenito naraslo.
Parliament further pointed out that limitation of the right of access is also necessary because its premises are subject to national legislation and regulations limiting the number of persons to be admimed on safety grounds, especially with regard to fi re risks.
Poudaril je še, da omejeni dostop zahtevajo tudi nacionalni zakoni in predpisi, ki iz varnostnih razlogov, zlasti zaradi požarne ogroženosti, omejujejo število obiskovalcev.
It referred in this context to a note that had been sent to the College of Quaestors.
V zvezi s tem se je skliceval na sporoÏilo, poslano koleg` u kvestorjev.
The Ombudsman considered that Parliament had not explained why the position of all categories of Community staT should not be considered comparable for the purposes of access to its premises and that, on the contrary, Parliament had merely referred, without any distinction of staT categories, to a general need, for safety reasons, to restrict the overall numbers of those having access.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ocenil, da Parlament ni pojasnil, zakaj vse kategor`e uslužbencev Skupnosti niso v primerljivem položaju, kar zadeva dostop do njegovih prostorov, temveÏ se je skliceval na splošno potrebo, da se število obiskovalcev omeji iz varnostnih razlogov, brez razlikovanja glede na kategor`o uslužbencev.
He concluded that Parliament had failed to provide an objective justification for its refusal to allow Commission auxiliary agents access to its premises when there are no meetings scheduled and that
Zato je sklenil, da Parlament ni zadostno utemeljil, zakaj je pomožnim uslužbencem Komis` e prepovedal dostop do svojih prostorov, kadar na urniku ni sestankov, ter da gre pri tem za neupraviÏeno diskriminac`o.
The Ombudsman therefore proposed a friendly solution which would consist in Parliament puming an end to the situation in which the access of auxiliary agents of other institutions to European Parliament premises is restricted without an objective justification. cation.
Predlagal je sporazumno rešitev, namreÏ da naj Evropski parlament pomožnemu osebju drugih instituc` dovoli dostop do svojih prostorov, saj za to izjemo nima zadostne utemeljitve.
In reply, Parliament informed the Ombudsman that, following the entry into force of the new StaT Regulations, the problem raised in the complaint no longer existed.
Parlament je odgovoril, da z zaÏetkom veljavnosti novih kadrovskih prepisov težava, ki jo navaja pritožnik, ne obstaja veÏ.
Parliament pointed out that a new regime for contractual agents is applicable in Parliament since 1 March 2005 for staT previously employed on auxiliary contracts and, since 1 January 2005, for newly-recruited staT.
Poudaril je, da nova ureditev za pogodbene uslužbence, ki so bili prej zaposleni kot pomožni uslužbenci, v Parlamentu velja od 1. marca 2005, za nove uslužbence pa od 1. januarja 2005.
As a result, Parliament no longer distinguishes between d iT erent categories of staT for access purposes.
Tako Parlament ne razlikuje veÏ med posameznimi kategor`ami uslužbencev, kar zadeva dostop.
Article 6 of the new rules governing access to Parliament’s premises, adopted on 28 January 2005, provides for access to Parliament’s premises for all categories of staT of other institutions.
Jlen 6 novega pravilnika o dostopu do prostorov Evropskega parlamenta, sprejetega 28. januarja 2005, omogoÏa dostop vsem kategor`am uslužbencev drugih instituc` .
REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL COSTS
POVRAJILO PRAVNIH STROŠKOV
Summary of decision on complaint 1733/2004/OV against the European Parliament
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1733/2004/OV zoper Evropski parlament
An oU cial of the European Parliament complained to the Ombudsman in 2001 about his lack of reinstatement a W er a period of unpaid leave.
Uradnik Evropskega parlamenta se je leta 2001 pritožil Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic, ker po izteku neplaÏanega dopusta ni bil znova zaposlen.
Further to the Ombudsman’s decision in this case (case 1462/2001/ME), the complainant asked Parliament in November 2002 for compensation for loss of income and pension rights.
Na podlagi odloÏbe varuha v tem primeru (1462/2001/ME) je pritožnik od Parlamenta novembra 2002 zahteval nadomestilo za izpad dohodka in pokojninskih pravic.
Having received no reply within the period of four months prescribed by the StaT Regulations, the complainant engaged a lawyer in March 2003, in order to initiate proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Ker v roku štirih mesecev, ki ga doloÏajo kadrovski predpisi, ni prejel odgovora, je pritožnik marca 2003 najel odvetnika, da bi zaÏel postopek na SodišÏu prve stopnje.
In May 2003, six weeks a W er the expiry of the deadline for a reply under the StaT Regulations, Parliament finally accepted the complainant’s request.
Maja 2003, šest tednov po izteku roka za odgovor, ki ga doloÏajo kadrovski predpisi, je Parlament konÏno ugodil pritožnikovi zahtevi. Pritožnik je obvestil Parlament, da je z njegovim odgovorom zadovoljen, vendar je zahteval povraÏilo pravnih stroškov.
Parliament refused, on the grounds that the complainant had consulted his lawyer during the administrative stage of the procedure.
Parlament zahtevi ni ugodil, Ïeš da je pritožnik odvetnika najel v upravni fazi postopka.
PROVISION OF INFORMATION IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES DURING AN ELECTION CAMPAIGN
ZAGOTAVLJANJE INFORMACL V RAZLIJNIH JEZIKIH MED VOLILNO KAMPANJO
Summary of decision on complaint 1737/2004/TN against the European Parliament
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1737/2004/TN zoper Evropski parlament
The Swedish Assembly of Finland complained that posters used as part of Parliament’s information campaign in Finland for the 2004 European Parliament elections were only published in Finnish.
Švedska skupšÏina Finske se je pritožila, da so bili plakati, uporabljeni na Finskem v informac` ski kampanji za volitve v Evropski parlament leta 2004, natisnjeni izkljuÏno v fi n š Ï in i .
The complainant pointed out that Finland has two oU cial languages, Finnish and Swedish, both of which are also oU cial languages of the EU.
Pritožnica je poudarila, da na Finskem obstajata dva uradna jezika, fi n š Ï i na in švedšÏina, ki sta prav tako uradna jezika EU.