natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its judgment of 22May 2008 in Case F-145/06* Pascual-García vCommission, theTribunalmade clear that the fact that research work might have further developed the applicant’s training and subsequently enabled him to obtain the qualification of doctor does not, as such, prevent it from being classified as professional experience within the meaning of the notice of competition.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 22. maja 2008 v zadevi Pascual-García proti Komisiji (F-145/06) pojasnilo, da dejstvo, da kandidat pri raziskovalni dejavnosti lahko nadgradi svojo izobrazbo in na koncu pridobi doktorski naziv, samo po sebi ne morebiti ovira za opredelitev raziskovalne dejavnosti kot strokovne izkušnje v smislu obvestila o natečaju.
In its judgment of 11 September 2008 in Case F-127/07* Coto Moreno vCommission, the Tribunal held that a selection board’s assessment of candidates’knowledge and ability is not open to review by the Tribunal.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 11. septembra 2008 v zadevi Coto Moreno proti Komisiji (F-127/07) razsodilo, da ocenjevanje, ki ga opravi natečajna komisija pri oceni znanj in sposobnosti kandidatov, ni predmet sodnega nadzora.
This does not apply as regards consistency between the numerical mark and the selection board’s assessments expressed in words.
Navedeno ne velja za skladnost med številčno in opisno oceno komisije.
Such consistency, which furnishes a guarantee of equal treatment of candidates, is one of the rules governing the proceedings of the selection board, compliance with which must be verified as part of judicial review.
Ta skladnost, ki zagotavlja enako obravnavanje kandidatov, je eno od pravil za delo komisij, katerih spoštovanje mora preverjati sodišče.
Moreover, consistency between the numerical mark and the assessment expressed in words may be reviewed by the Community judicature independently of review of the selection board’s assessment of the candidates’performance, the latter being a review which the Tribunal declines to exercise, provided the review of consistency is limited to verifying the absence of manifest inconsistency.
Poleg tega je skladnost med številčno in opisno oceno lahko predmet nadzora sodišča Skupnosti, neodvisnega od nadzora ocenjevanja sposobnosti kandidatov, ki ga opravi komisija, a ga Sodišče za uslužbence ne opravlja, saj je nadzor skladnosti omejen na preverjanje neobstoja očitne neskladnosti.
In its judgment of 14 October 2008 in Case F-74/07* Meierhofer vCommission, theTribunalmade clear, as regards the obligation to state reasons for a decision of a selection board relating to an oral test, that the communication to the candidate of only a single individual eliminatory mark does not always constitute a sufficient statement of reasons, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 14. oktobra 2008 v zadevi Meierhofer proti Komisiji (F-74/07*) glede obveznosti obrazložitve odločbe natečajne komisije, ki se nanaša na ustni preizkus, pojasnilo, da obvestilo kandidatu o enotni posamezni izključitveni oceni ni vedno – in neodvisno od posebnih okoliščin obravnavanega primera – zadostna obrazložitev.
In this case, the Tribunal observed that the defendant’s refusal to comply with certain measures of organisation of the procedure meant that the Tribunal could not exercise fully its power of review.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v obravnavani zadevi ugotovilo, da zaradi zavrnitve tožene stranke, da izpolni določene ukrepe procesnega vodstva, ni moglo vceloti opraviti nadzora.
P re flight :
Ocenjevanje
In its judgment of 6 March 2008 in Case F-46/06 Skareby v Commission (under appeal to theCourtofFirstInstance ), the Tribunal recalled that it is clear from the fourth subparagraph of Article 8(5) of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the StaffRegulations adopted by the Commission that the administration is required to establish objectives and appraisal criteria for a jobholder.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 6. marca 2008 v zadevi Skareby proti Komisiji (F-46/06), zoper katero je bila pri Sodišču prve stopnje vložena pritožba, opozorilo, da iz člena 8(5), četrti pododstavek, splošnih določb za izvajanje člena 43 Kadrovskihpredpisov, ki jih je sprejela Komisija, izhaja, da mora uprava določiti cilje in ocenjevalna merila za zaposlenega.
According to that provision, the formal dialogue held between the reporting officer and the jobholder at the start of each appraisal exercise must cover not only the appraisal of that jobholder’s performance during the reference period but also the setting of objectives for the year following the reporting period.
Na podlagi te določbe se mora uradni razgovor med ocenjevalcem in zaposlenim, ki poteka na začetku vsakega ocenjevanja, nanašati ne le na oceno storitev tega zaposlenega v referenčnem obdobju, ampak tudi na določitev ciljev za leto, ki referenčnemu obdobju sledi. Ti cilji pomenijo referenčno osnovo za oceno produktivnosti.
Promotion
Napredovanje
By four judgments of 31 January 2008 in Case F-97/05 Buendía Sierra vCommission, Case F-98/05 Di Bucci vCommission, Case F-99/05 Wilms v Commission and Case F-104/05 Valero Jordana vCommission, the Tribunal held that, in the absence of provisions derogating from the principle of the immediate applicability of the new rules in Regulation No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the StaffRegulations of Officials of the EuropeanCommunities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, Article 45(1) of the StaffRegulations, as amended by that regulation, was immediately applicable on the entry into force of that regulation.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v štirih sodbah z dne 31. januarja 2008 v zadevah Buendía Sierra proti Komisiji (F-97/05), Di Bucci proti Komisiji (F-98/05), Wilms proti Komisiji (F-99/05) in Valero Jordana proti Komisiji (F-104/05) razsodilo, da je – ob neobstoju določb, ki bi odstopale od načela takojšnje uporabe novih pravil iz Uredbe št. 723/2004, s katero so bili z učinkom od 1. maja 2004 spremenjeni Kadrovski predpisi za uradnike in Pogoji za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev – za člen 45(1) Kadrovskihpredpisov, kakor je bil spremenjen sto uredbo, od začetka veljavnosti te uredbe veljala takojšnja uporaba.
Consequently, the Commission could not lawfully apply, in November 2004, the provisions of Article 45(1) of the old StaffRegulations which were repealed by that regulation, to adopt the decision fixing the total number of merit points of an official on conclusion of the 2004 promotion exercise and the decision not to promote him in that exercise.
Zato Komisija novembra 2004 pri sprejetju odločbe o določitvi skupnega števila točk, ki jih mora uradnik zbrati za delovno uspešnost na koncu napredovalnega obdobja 2004, in odločbe o njegovem nenapredovanju v tem obdobju ni mogla zakonito uporabiti določb člena 45(1) prejšnjih Kadrovskihpredpisov, ki so bili razveljavljeni z navedeno uredbo.
By four judgments of 11 December 2008 in Case F-58/07 Collotte vCommission, Case F-66/07 Dubus and Leveque vCommission, Case F-92/07 Evraets v Commission and Case F-93/07 Acosta Iborra andOthers vCommission, the Tribunal held that Article 45(2) of the StaffRegulations, concerning the obligation on an official to demonstrate his ability to work in a third language before his first promotion, could not be applied before the entry into force of the common rules for implementation laid down by Article 45(2).
Sodišče za uslužbence je v štirih sodbah z dne 11. decembra 2008 v zadevah Collotte proti Komisiji (F-58/07), Dubus in Leveque proti Komisiji (F-66/07), Evraets proti Komisiji (F-92/07) in Acosta Iborra in drugi proti Komisiji (F-93/07) ugotovilo, da člena 45(2) Kadrovskihpredpisov, ki se nanaša na obveznost uradnika, da pred svojim prvim napredovanjem izkaže sposobnost delati v tretjem jeziku, ni mogoče uporabiti pred začetkom veljavnosti skupnih pravil za izvajanje, določenih v tem členu.
The judgment of 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission (under appeal to theCourtofFirstInstance ), concerned, inter alia, the interpretation of the fourth sentence of Article 7(7) of Annex XIII to the StaffRegulations concerning the possible effects on the remuneration of officials recruited before 1 May 2004 of the change in the designation of grades.
Sodba z dne 4. septembra 2008 v zadevi La ê li proti Komisiji (F-22/07), zoper katero je bila pri Sodišču prve stopnje vložena pritožba, se med drugim nanaša na razlago četrtega stavka člena 7(7) priloge XIII h Kadrovskim predpisom, ki opredeljuje možne učinke preimenovanja razredov na plačo uradnikov, zaposlenih pred 1. majem 2004.
This, fairly technical, judgment favours an interpretation consistent with the principle of the immediate application of new rules, in this case the reform of the Staff Regulations.
Ta sorazmerno tehnična sodba da je prednost razlagi, ki je v skladu z načelom takojšnje uporabe nove ureditve, in sicer v obravnavani zadevi reforme Kadrovskih predpisov.
It was held, in particular, that‘transitional measures should, by their very nature, be intended to facilitate the transition from old rules to new rules, while safeguarding acquired rights, without at the same time maintaining for the benefit of one category of officials the effects of the old rules in situations arising in the future, such as advancement in step under the new career structure’.
Natančneje, Sodišče za uslužbence je razsodilo, da„bi cilj prehodnih ukrepov moralo biti olajšanje prehoda iz prejšnje ureditve v novo ureditev, pri čemer bi se ohranile pridobljene pravice, ne pa tudi učinki prejšnje ureditve – v korist ene kategorije uradnikov – za situacije, ki bodo nastale v prihodnosti, kakršna je povišanje v stopnji v okviru nove karierne strukture“.
Moreover,‘in the case of provisions which are ambiguously expressed and susceptible of more than one interpretation, such as those applicable here, preference must begiven to the interpretation which allows such difference in treatment of officials to be avoided’.
Poleg tega „je treba v primeru dvoumnih določb, ki jih je mogoče razlagati različno – kot to velja za določbe v obravnavani zadevi – dati prednost razlagi, ki ne dopušča takega neenakega obravnavanja uradnikov“.
Proceedings and are based on entirely different rules. In that regard, although the countersigning officer is competent to adopt the career development report, subject to the report not being amended by the appeal assessor, it is for the appointing authority to rule, at each stage in the attestation procedure, on the candidatures for attestation.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Putterie-De-Beukelaer proti Komisiji ugotovilo, da se postopek ocenjevanja, opredeljen v splošnih določbah o izvajanju člena 43 Kadrovskihpredpisov, ki jih je sprejela Komisija, in postopek atestiranja, opredeljen v odločbi Komisije z dne 7. aprila 2004 o podrobnih pravilih za izvajanje postopka atestiranja, razlikujeta in temeljita na drugačnih podrobnih pravilih.
In particular, it is the responsibility of that authority, hence an authority other than the countersigning officer of the appraisal procedure, to assess, on the basis of the available career development reports, the experience and merit of candidates for attestation.
Natančneje, OPI – torej organ, ki ni potrjevalec v postopku ocenjevanja – je tisti, ki mora na podlagi razpoložljivih kariernih ocenjevalnih poročil presoditi o izkušnjah in uspešnosti kandidatov, ki se jih atestira.
In its judgment of 21 February 2008 in Case F-19/06 Semeraro vCommission, theTribunalmade clear that point 1.1 of the Commission decision of 11 May 2005 on the criteria for the 2005 attestation procedure, according to which, in order to be included on the list of officials admitted to the attestation procedure, those officials had to have had their potential recognised in their annual career development report, exceeds the limits of the authority by virtue of which, for the purposes of drawing up the list of officials admitted to the attestation procedure, the appointing authority is to decide the value of the criteria and the weighting applied to them after consulting the joint attestation committee.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 21. februarja 2008 v zadevi Semeraro proti Komisiji (F-19/06) pojasnilo, da točka 1.1 odločbe Komisije z dne 11. maja 2005 o merilih za razvrstitev, ki se nanašajo na postopek atestiranja za leto 2005, na podlagi katere mora biti uradnikova sposobnost – da bi bil ta vključen na seznam uradnikov, pripuščenih k atestiranju – potrjena v njegovem kariernem ocenjevalnem poročilu, presega meje pooblastila, na podlagi katerega OPI zaradi priprave seznama uradnikov, pripuščenih k atestiranju, na podlagi mnenja paritetnega odbora za postopek atestiranja določi vrednost meril in njihovo ponderacijo.
Emoluments and social security benefits of officials
Prejemki in socialne ugodnosti uradnika
In its judgment of 2 December 2008 in Case F-131/07 Baniel-Kubinova andOthers v Parliament, the Tribunal held that members of the temporary and/or auxiliary staff who had received the daily subsistence allowance and, subsequently, the installation allowance in part or in full ( on the basis of declarations of the transfer of their habitual residence to their place of employment) cannot then, at the time of their engagement as probationary officials in that same place of employment, claim the daily subsistence allowance again.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 2. decembra 2008 v zadevi Baniel-Kubinova in drugi proti Parlamentu (F-131/07) razsodilo, da začasni in/ali pomožni uslužbenci, ki so prejeli dnevno nadomestilo in nato, delno ali v celoti, nadomestilo za nastanitev (na podlagi izjavo prenosu njihovega običajnega prebivališča v kraj zaposlitve), v istem kraju zaposlitve ne morejo ponovno zaprositi za dnevno nadomestilo, ko se zaposlijo kot uradniki na poskusnem delu.
The daily subsistence allowance is reserved for officials and other staff who are obliged to change their place of residence in order to comply with Article 20 of the StaffRegulations, a condition which the applicants did not fulfil as they had already changed their place of residence, as they had declared in order to receive the installation allowance.
Dnevno nadomestilo je namreč namenjeno uradnikom in začasnim uslužbencem, ki morajo zaradi izpolnitve določb člena 20 Kadrovskih predpisov spremeniti kraj prebivanja, tožeče stranke pa po njihovih navedbah tega pogoja niso izpolnjevale, da bi dobile nadomestilo za nastanitev, saj so ga že spremenile.
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the EuropeanCommunities
Pogoji za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti
Classificationingrade of a member of the contract staff
Razvrstitevvnaziv pogodbenega uslužbenca
In its judgment of 11 December 2008 in Case F-136/06 Reali vCommission, theTribunalmade clear that Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’duration does not have the effect of limiting the discretion which an institution enjoys when comparing the respective value of diplomas or the level of qualification attested by the authorisation to practise a profession within the framework of its recruitment policy.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 11. decembra 2008 v zadevi Reali proti Komisiji (F-136/06) pojasnilo, da Direktiva Sveta 89/48/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splošnem sistemu priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, ne omejuje pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ki ga ima institucija, ko primerja ustrezne vrednosti diplom v okviru svoje politike zaposlovanja.
Under the system established by that directive, diplomas are compared for the purposes of access to certain regulated activities in the various Member States.
V okviru sistema Direktive št. 89/48 se primerjava diplom opravi zaradi dostopa do nekaterih reguliranih dejavnosti v različnih državah članicah. To se ne sme
Commission decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services
Odločba Komisije z dne 28. aprila 2004 o najdaljšem trajanju zaposlitve nestalnega osebja služb Komisije
In its judgment of 26 June 2008 in Case F-54/07 Joseph vCommission, theTribunalmade clear, as regards the Commission decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services, that, by imposing, in Article 85(1) of the Conditions of Employment, amaximum period of five years both for the conclusion and the renewal of the contracts of contract staff, the legislature did not prohibit the institutions from concluding or renewing that type of contract under Article 3 of those conditions for a shorter period, provided that the minimum duration laid down in Article 85(1) of those conditions (six or nine months as the case may be) is respected.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 26. junija 2008 v zadevi Joseph proti Komisiji (F-54/07) glede odločbe Komisije z dne 28. aprila 2004 o najdaljšem trajanju zaposlitve nestalnega osebja služb Komisije pojasnilo, da z določitvijo – na podlagi člena 85(1) PZDU – najvišje meje petih let, tako za sklenitev kot tudi za podaljšanje pogodb pogodbenih uslužbencev, zakonodajalec institucijam ni prepovedal sklepanja ali podaljševanja te vrste pogodb na podlagi člena 3a navedenega predpisa za krajše obdobje, če se spoštuje njihovo minimalno trajanje, določeno v členu 85(1) tega predpisa (šest ali devet mesecev, odvisno od primera).
However, an institution cannot, without breaching that provision, restrict generally and impersonally, as here by means of general implementing provisions or an internal decision of general application, the maximum possible period of employment of contract staff as determined by the legislature itself.
Vendar institucija ne sme na splošno in neodvisno od konkretnega primera – v obravnavani zadevi s splošnimi določbami za izvajanje ali z interno odločbo splošnega pomena – omejiti najdaljšega mogočega trajanja zaposlitve pogodbenih uslužbencev, kot ga je določil zakonodajalec, sicer bi kršila navedeno določbo.
Cases brought before the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure oftheTribunal
Zadeve, predložene pred začetkom veljavnosti Poslovnika Sodišča za uslužbence
The Tribunal has on several occasions applied Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of theCourtofFirstInstance , applicable mutatis mutandis to the CivilService Tribunal pursuant to Article 3(4) of Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the EuropeanUnion CivilService Tribunal (OJ L 333, p.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v več zadevah uporabilo člen 87(3) Poslovnika Sodiščaprvestopnje , ki se v skladu s členom 3(4) Sklepa Sveta 2004/752/ES z dne 2. novembra 2004 o ustanovitvi Sodišča za uslužbence Evropske unije (UL L 333, str.
7), until the entry into force of its Rules of Procedure.
7) mutatis mutandis uporablja do začetka veljavnosti njegovega poslovnika.
For instance, in its judgment of 24 June 2008 in Case F-84/07 Islamaj vCommission, the Tribunal decided to order that the costs be shared between the parties as the circumstances were exceptional, whereas in its judgments in Bui Van v Commission and Lafili vCommission, the Tribunal ordered that the costs be shared between the parties who were unsuccessful on one or more heads.
Tako je Sodišče za uslužbencev sodbi z dne 24. junija 2008 v zadevi Islamaj proti Komisiji (F-84/07) odločilo, da stroške zaradi izjemnih okoliščin razdeli med stranki, medtem ko je Sodišče za uslužbencev zgoraj navedenih sodbah Bui Van proti Komisiji in La ê li proti Komisiji razdelilo stroške med stranke, ki so bile delno ali vceloti neuspešne.
It should also be observed that, in a case in which the Tribunal held that therewas no needto adjudicate on the dispute, a situation in which costs are at the discretion of the Court pursuant to Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure of theCourtofFirstInstance , applicable mutatismutandis, the defendant was ordered to pay all the costs incurred by the applicant (order of 1 February 2008 in Case F-77/07 Labate v Commission).
Prav tako je treba omeniti, da se je v zadevi, v kateri je Sodišče za uslužbence ugotovilo, da je treba postopek ustaviti – primer, v katerem sodišče na podlagi člena 87(6) Poslovnika Sodiščaprvestopnje , ki se uporablja mutatis mutandis, o stroških odloči po lastni presoji –, in toženi stranki naložilo plačilo stroškov tožeče stranke (sklep z dne 1. februarja 2008 v zadevi Labate proti Komisiji, F-77/07).
The Tribunal took into account, first, the fact that the Commission did not reply to the complaint lodged by the applicant and, second, the fact that, by withdrawing the contested decision, the Commission had implicitly acknowledged that the procedure for the adoption of that decision was open to criticism, which led directly to the case being brought before the Community court.
Sodišče za uslužbence je namreč upoštevalo, prvič, okoliščino, da Komisija ni odgovorila na pritožbo tožeče stranke, in, drugič, dejstvo, da je Komisija z umikom sporne odločbe implicitno priznala, da postopek sprejemanja te odločbe ni bil brez nepravilnosti, zaradi česar je bila zadeva neposredno predložena sodišču Skupnosti.
Cases brought after the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure oftheTribunal
Zadeve, predložene po začetku veljavnosti Poslovnika Sodišča za uslužbence
One of the significant innovations brought about by the entry into force of the Rules of Procedure oftheTribunal on 1 November 2007 concerns the arrangements relating to costs.
Ena od pomembnih novosti ob začetku veljavnosti Poslovnika Sodišča za uslužbence 1. novembra 2007 se nanaša na ureditev stroškov.
Under Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Poslovnika se neuspešni stranki naloži plačilo stroškov, če so bili ti priglašeni.
Under Article 87(2) of those rules, if equity so requires, the Tribunal may decide that an unsuccessful party is to pay only part of the costs or even that he is not to be ordered to pay any.
V skladu s členom 87(2) navedenega poslovnika lahko Sodišče za uslužbence odloči, da se neuspešni stranki naloži le delno plačilo stroškov ali da seji plačilo stroškov ne naloži, če to zahteva pravičnost.
In its judgment of 4 December 2008 in Case F-6/08 Blais v ECB, the Tribunal applied for the first time the provision concerning equity laid down by Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, deciding that it was appropriate, although the applicant was unsuccessful, to order her to pay, in addition to her own costs, only half of the costs incurred by the defendant.
Sodišče za uslužbence je v sodbi z dne 4. decembra 2008 v zadevi Blais proti ECB (F-6/08) prvič uporabilo določbo o pravičnosti iz člena 87(2) Poslovnika in odločilo, da je bilo treba tožeči stranki, čeprav ta v postopku ni bila uspešna, poleg njenih stroškov naložiti le polovico stroškov, ki jih je priglasila tožena stranka.