natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1.4 In his decision on the complainant’s previous complaint (801/2000/(ME)PB) concerning the lack of response from the Commission with regard to his infringement complaint, the Ombudsman found no maladministration because he accepted that the Commission was waiting for the outcome of cases pending before the Court of Justice before producing a final reply to the complainant.
1.4 V svoji odločitvi glede predhodne pritožbe pritožnika (801/2000/(ME)PB) Varuh ni ugotovil nepravilnosti zaradi opustitve odgovora Komisij e glede njegove pritožbe zoper kršitev, ker je sprejel pojasnilo Komisije, da je čakala na sodbo Evropskega sodišča, preden bi dokončno odgovorila pritožniku.
He further noted that the Commission undertook to take a decision on the complainant’s infringement complaint in October 2001 and to inform the complainant thereof.
Nadalje je navedel, da se je Komisij a obvezala sprejeti odločitev o pritožnikovi pritožbi zoper kršitev oktobra 2001 in ga o tem tudi obvestiti.
1.5 It appears that the Court of Justice has now delivered judgement in the cases for which the Commission was waiting.
1.5 Sodišče je izreklo sodbo v primerih, na katere je čakala Komisij a.
Notwithstanding this, the Commission has still not taken a decision on the alleged infringement, despite its undertaking to do so in October 2001.
Kljub temu Komisij a še vedno ni sprejela odločitve glede domnevne kršitve, čeprav se je obvezala, da bo to storila oktobra 2001.
Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s explanation of why it did not reach a decision by October 2001, despite its undertaking to do so, is not unreasonable. However, the complainant could reasonably expect that the Commission would inform him in October 2001 of the fact that it would not fulfil its undertaking and of the reasons.
Komisij a je pojasnila razloge, zakaj ni sprejela odločitve, z navedbo, da je k problemom v zvezi z obdavčitvijo avtomobilov raje izbrala splošen pristop z namenom, da bi te probleme rešili sočasno v vseh državah članicah, s sodelovanjem ter z izdajo sporočila Komisije, zapisanega v jasnem in preprostem jeziku.
The Commission’s failure to do so is an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore makes a critical remark below.
Nadalje je Komisij a navedla, da zadeva spada na področje prava, ki še ni harmonizirano.
See the Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1997, page 270.
Glej letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic za leto 1997, stran 270.
The Ombudsman notes that this one year rule has been formally laid down in point 8 of the Annex to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)141 final), 2002 OJ C 244/5.
Varuh ugotavlja, da je bilo enoletno pravilo formalno določeno v točki 8 Priloge sporočila Komisij e Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic o razmerju do pritožnika glede kršitev prava Skupnosti (COM(2002)141 final), 2002 UL C 244/5.
Decisions following an inquiry
Zato Varuh daje kritično pripombo.
It is good administrative practice to respect the legitimate and reasonable expectations that members of the public have in the light of how the institution has acted in the past.72 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s explanation of why it did not reach a decision by October 2001, despite its undertaking to do so, is not unreasonable.
Praksa dobrega upravljanja je spoštovati legitimna in razumna pričakovanja, ki jih ima javnost glede na to, kako je institucij a ravnala v preteklosti.72 Varuh človekovih pravic meni, da ni nerazumno pojasnilo Komisij e o razlogih, zakaj do oktobra 2001 ni sprejela odločitve, kljub temu da se je za to obvezala.
However, the complainant could reasonably expect that the Commission would inform him in October 2001 of the fact that it would not fulfil its undertaking and of the reasons.
Vendar je pritožnik lahko razumno pričakoval, da ga bo Komisij a oktobra 2001 obvestila o dejstvu, da ne bo izpolnila svoje obveze, ter o razlogih za to.
The Commission’s failure to do so is an instance of maladministration.
Ker Komisij a tega ni storila, je to primer nepravilnosti.
Given the explanations provided by the Commission for the delayed inquiry into the complainant’s complaint and its new promise to keep the complainant informed about the outcome, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Glede na pojasnila Komisij e za zamudo pri obravnavi pritožnikove pritožbe in njeni novi obljubi, da bo pritožnika obveščala o izidu, ni primerno prizadevanje za sporazumno poravnavo v tej zadevi.
DISCRIMINATORY CLAUSE IN NOTICE OF COMPETITION
DISKRIMINATORNA KLAVZULA V OBJAVI JAVNEGA RAZPISA
Decision on complaint 1523/2002/GG against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1523/2002/GG zoper Evropsko komisij o
In the summer of 2002, the Commission published two open competitions, one for administrators (COM/A/1/02) and one for assistant administrators (COM/A/2/02), in the fields of agriculture,
Poleti 2002 je Komisij a objavila dva javna razpisa, enega za uradnike (COM/A/1/02) in drugega za pomožne uradnike (COM/A/2/02) za področje kmetijstva, ribištva in okolja.73
According to the notice of the second competition, candidates needed to have a university degree but no professional experience.
Po drugem razpisu so morali kandidati imeti univerzitetno izobrazbo, toda nobenih poklicnih izkušenj.
However, the notice contained the following provision (point A.II.2.b): “You will be allowed to sit the competition if you obtained the university degree required for admission a er 27 September 1997.”
Vendar je objava vsebovala naslednjo določbo (točka A.II.2.b): “Pri razpisu boste lahko sodelovali, če ste zahtevano univerzitetno diplomo pridobili po 27. septembru 1997.”
In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in August 2002, the complainant (a Commission official) alleged that the condition set out at point A.II.2.b of the notice of competition constituted a clear case of discrimination on the grounds of age.
V svoji pritožbi pri Varuhu, ki jo je pritožnik (uradnik Komisije) vložil avgusta 2002, je trdil, da je pogoj iz točke A.II.2.b v razpisu jasen primer starostne diskriminacije.
He took the view that this issue had already been resolved.
Zagovarjal je stališče, da je bilo to vprašanje že rešeno.
It appears that the complainant thus indirectly referred to the Ombudsman’s decision of 27 June 2002 in OI/2/2001/(BB)/OV.
Zdi se, da je pritožnik s svojo pritožbo posredno opozoril na sklep Evropskega varuha z dne 27. junij a 2002 v OI/2/2001/(BB)/OV.
In this decision, the Ombudsman noted that the President of the Commission had informed him of the Commission’s decision adopted on 10 April 2002 “to abolish age limits for all competitions run by the Commission with immediate effect”. ect”.
V tem sklepu je Varuh navedel, da ga je predsednik Komisij e obvestil o odločitvi Komisij e z dne 10. aprila 2002, “da se odpravijo starostne omejitve za vse razpise v organizacij i Komisij e s takojšnjim učinkom”.
Competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators and competition COM/A/2/02 for assistant administrators should be considered together. For the competition concerned (competition
Glej člen 10 (2) Kodeksa dobrega ravnanja za javne uslužbence, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament v resolucij i C50438/2000 z dne 6. septembra 2001 (dostopnega na spletni strani Evropskega varuha: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
OJ C 177A/13 of 25 July 2002.
UL C 177A/13 z dne 25. julij a 2002.
Decisions following an inquiry
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju navedla:
COM/A/2/02), no professional experience was required but candidates needed to have obtained the university degree required a er 27 September 1997 or a postgraduate qualification directly relevant to the areas of activity concerned a er 27 September 1999.
Za zadevni javni razpis (COM/A/2/02) niso potrebne poklicne izkušnje, vendar morajo kandidati imeti univerzitetno diplomo, pridobljeno po 27. septembru 1997, oziroma zaključen podiplomski študij z ustreznega področja po 27. septembru 1999.
For competition COM/A/1/02, the date of the degree was irrelevant, and the only requirement was that by 27 September 2002 (the closing date for the submission of applications) candidates had at least three years’ professional experience corresponding to the duties concerned.
Za javni razpis COM/A/1/02 je bil datum pridobitve diplome nepomemben, edina zahteva je bila, da ima kandidat do 27. septembra 2002 (zadnji dan za oddajo prijav) vsaj tri leta poklicnih izkušenj, ustreznih za to delovno mesto.
The “recent degree” clause that applied to the competition concerned was broader than in previous competitions, in the sense that the degree that was required for admission to the competition had to be obtained less than fi ve years before the closing date for the submission of applications (rather than three years as previously).
Klavzula o “nedavno pridobljeni diplomi” v obravnavanem javnem razpisu je bila zastavljena širše kot v prejšnjih razpisih, saj se je za sprejem na javnem razpisu zahtevala diploma, pridobljena v manj kot petih letih od roka za vlaganje prijav (v primerjavi s tremi leti, kot je bilo zahtevano prej).
Second, the present notice of competition offered an alternative eligibility condition, namely the acquisition of a postgraduate qualification obtained less than three years previously.
Sedanji razpis je za izpolnjevanje pogojev alternativno določal pridobitev podiplomske kvalifi kacij e pred manj kot tremi leti.
This qualification did not need to have been obtained immediately a er the fi first degree, but could have been acquired as a result of additional training during the candidate’s professional career (even 5, 10 or 15 years a er starting work).
Te kvalifi kacij e ni bilo potrebno pridobiti neposredno po prvi diplomi, ampak jo je kandidat lahko pridobil kot rezultat dodatnega usposabljanja med poklicno kariero (celo 5, 10 ali 15 let po začetku dela).
The competition concerned was for career bracket A8 (assistant administrator), which is the basic A-grade career bracket.
Obravnavani javni razpis je bil za karierni razred A8 (pomožni uradnik), ki je najnižji razred kategorij e A.
The requirement of a recently obtained degree was a condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled, as the Ombudsman had stated in point 1.4 of his decision on joint complaints 428/98/JMA and 464/98/JMA74. In the case of recruitment in the basic career bracket, the
Nedavno pridobljena diploma se je zahtevala zaradi narave razpisanih delovnih mest, kot je Evropski varuh navedel v točki 1.4 svojega Sklepa o skupnih pritožbah 428/98/JMA in 464/98/JMA.74 Za zaposlitev v začetnem kariernem razredu je Komisij a zahtevala nedavno pridobljeno oziroma “sveže” znanje.
The argument that the “recent degree” clause resulted in discrimination on the grounds of age was based on the assumption that only young people studied.
Argument, da klavzula o “nedavno pridobljeni diplomi” povzroča starostno diskriminacijo, temelji na domnevi, da so študirali zgolj mladi ljudje.
However, people who were not young but who engaged in study during their working life would meet the requirement in the same way as young people.
Vendar bi pogojem prav tako ustrezali ljudje, ki so študirali med delom, niso pa bili več mladi.
Furthermore, as the competition concerned was running in parallel with competition COM/A/1/02, anyone who had obtained his first degree more than fi ve years previously could apply for this competition.
Ker je ta razpis potekal sočasno z razpisom COM/A/1/02, se je vsakdo, ki je svojo diplomo pridobil pred več kot petimi leti, lahko prijavil na slednjega.
The appointing authority, in the interest of the service and having regard to the posts covered by the competition in question, had therefore legally and legitimately been able to impose the condition concerned.
Organ za imenovanje je lahko legalno in legitimno postavil zadevne pogoje v interesu službe in glede na razpisana delovna mesta.
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint.
Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah vztrajal pri pritožbi.
He queried how a candidate who had obtained his degree four and a half years ago could be considered as possessing a “fresh degree” whereas one who had acquired his degree fi ve and a half years ago was excluded from the competition.
Vprašal je, kako se je lahko za kandidata, ki je svojo diplomo pridobil pred štirimi leti in pol, smatralo, da ima “nedavno pridobljeno diplomo”, medtem ko kandidat, ki je diplomo pridobil pred petimi leti in pol, ni smel sodelovati pri javnem razpisu.
The complainant further submi ed that in view of the rapid technological and scientific development, the period since the acquisition of the “recent degree” should be reduced rather than extended.
Pritožnik je nadalje trdil, da bi se moralo obdobje od pridobitve “pred nedavnim pridobljene diplome” prej skrajšati kot podaljšati glede na hiter tehnološki in znanstveni razvoj.
In the complainant’s view, the condition should be abolished altogether and the “fresh knowledge” tested during the competition itself.
Po mnenju pritožnika bi morali pogoj odpraviti in “sveže znanje” preizkusiti med samim razpisom.
According to the complainant, not only, but mostly young people studied.
Po mnenju pritožnika so študirali ne samo, temveč pretežno mladi ljudje.
As a consequence, a condition like the one at issue in the present case excluded mostly persons of a higher age and therefore constituted discrimination on the grounds of age in the complainant’s view.
Posledično tak pogoj izključuje večinoma starejše ljudi in tako po mnenju pritožnika predstavlja diskriminacij o po starosti.
Point 1.4 of this decision (adopted on 21 July 2000) reads as follows: ”The Commission has justified the application of this clause on the basis of the nature and functions to be carried out by assistant administrators.
Točka 1.4 sklepa (sprejetega 21. julij a 2000) se glasi: »Komisija je upravičila uporabo te klavzule na podlagi narave in funkcij, ki jih izvajajo pomožni uradniki.
Since A8 officials are not deemed to have any relevant professional experience prior to their joining the Commission, the institution has set a date – usually no more than 2 or 3 years before the competition – for the completion of their studies. The ’freshness’ of the diploma appears thus as a specific condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled.”
Ker za uradnike kariernega razreda A8 ni predvideno, da imajo ustrezne poklicne izkušnje, preden pričnejo z delom pri Komisij i, je ta določila datum - običajno ne več kot 2 ali 3 leta pred javnim razpisom - za zaključek njihovega študij a. ’Svežina’diplome je zato poseben pogoj, ki temelji na naravi delovnega mesta, ki se mora zasesti.
Point 1.5 reads: ”In view of the nature of the tasks to be entrusted to an assistant administrator, and also taking into account that their recruitment has traditionally been done among recently graduated university students, the Ombudsman considers that the argumnets put forward by the Commission seem reasonable.
Točka 1.5 se glasi: “Glede na naravo nalog, poverjenih pomožnemu uradniku, in ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se tradicionalno zaposlijo kandidati, ki so diplomo pridobili nedavno, Varuh meni, da je argument Komisij e upravičen.
Moreover, the limitations imposed by this clause appear to be proportional to their purported aim, namely to enable the institution to be er target prospective A8 candidates.”
Razen tega so omejitve, ki jih takšna klavzula postavlja, sorazmerne njenemu namenu omogočiti institucij i, da bolje določi perspektivne kandidate za delovno mesto razreda A8.”
The complainant added that the fact that the relevant competition was running in parallel with competition COM/A/1/02 did not change anything since this competition required three years’ professional experience and thus excluded many categories of graduates.
Po mnenju pritožnika nič ne spremeni dejstva, da je ta razpis potekal vzporedno z razpisom COM/A/1/02, kajti slednji je zahteval tri leta poklicnih izkušenj in je tako izključil veliko kategorijdiplomantov.
In the complainant’s view, the relevant condition also discriminated on the grounds of sex.
Po mnenju pritožnika je ta pogoj prav tako diskriminiral med spoloma.
He pointed out that a woman who had obtained her degree six or more years before the relevant date, and who had then had children, was punished by being excluded from the competition.
Poudaril je, da je ženska, ki je diplomirala šest ali več let pred določenim datumom in je potem imela otroke, bila kaznovana, saj ni mogla sodelovati pri razpisu.
The complainant argued that in a previous competition (competition COM/LA/9/99), the Commission had protected such categories of persons.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je Komisij a pri prejšnjem razpisu (COM/LA/9/99) takšne kategorij e ljudi zaščitila.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnika se je pokazala potreba po nadaljnji preiskavi.
The Ombudsman therefore forwarded a copy of the complainant’s observations to the Commission and asked the la er to provide an opinion on the further allegation that had been submi ed by the complainant and according to which the relevant condition also constituted discrimination on the grounds of sex.
Varuh je zato Komisij i posredoval fotokopijo pripomb pritožnika in jo pozval, da poda mnenje o nadaljnjih trditvah, ki jih je pritožnik posredoval in v katerih meni, da dani pogoj diskriminira med spoloma.
In its second opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je v svojem drugem mnenju navedla:
The Commission’s aim in organising competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators and competition COM/A/2/02 for assistant administrators was to ensure a balance between the recruitment of officials (men and women) with a certain amount of confirmed professional experience and officials (men and women) with more freshly acquired knowledge.
Namen Komisij e pri objavi javnih razpisov COM/A/1/02 za uradnike in COM/A/2/02 za pomožne uradnike je bil zagotoviti ravnovesje med zaposlovanjem uradnikov (moških in žensk) z določenim obsegom potrjenega poklicnega znanja ter uradnikov (moških in žensk) z nedavno pridobljenim znanjem.
It was certainly true that some people (men and women) had not obtained their degree a er the date stipulated in the notice of competition or did not have the required professional experience.
Vsekakor drži, da nekateri ljudje (moški in ženske) svoje diplome niso pridobili po datumu, določenem v objavi razpisa, oziroma niso imeli zahtevanih poklicnih izkušenj.
This did however not amount to discrimination, either on the grounds of age or between men and women.
Vendar to ni predstavljalo diskriminacije, niti zaradi starosti niti med spoloma.
Competitions were not deemed to be open to all candidates who had obtained their degree since the last general competition had been organised.
Objavi razpisov nista bili odprti za vse kandidate, ki so svojo diplomo pridobili od organizacij e zadnjega splošnega razpisa.
The fact was that the Commission and the other institutions organised their competitions to recruit officials based on the needs of their services.
Dejstvo je, da Komisij a in ostale institucij e svoje razpise organizirajo z namenom zaposlitve uradnikov za potrebe svojih služb.
To this end, they had considerable discretion, provided they observed the general provisions of the Staff Regulations.
Zaradi tega so imele pri tem precejšnjo svobodo, pod pogojem, da so upoštevale splošne določbe kadrovskih predpisov.
It was thus quite normal for notices of competition to differ, depending on the profiles of the officials the Commission wished to recruit.
Zato je bilo precej običajno, da so se besedila razpisov glede na profile uradnikov, ki jih je Komisij a želela zaposliti, med seboj razlikovala.
The notice of competition COM/LA/9/99 that had been published in 1999 provided that derogations from the cut-off date for obtaining the relevant degree were possible for candidates who had completed compulsory military service, who had had an uninterrupted break from paid employment for at least one year in order to look a er a dependent child (this was presumably what the complainant had in mind) or who had a physical disability.
Besedilo javnega razpisa COM/LA/9/99 iz leta 1999 je določalo, da je spregled končnega roka za pridobitev ustrezne diplome možen za tiste kandidate, ki so zaključili obvezno vojaško služenje, ki so imeli prekinitev plačane zaposlitve za najmanj leto dni, da bi skrbeli za odvisnega otroka (verjetno je imel pritožnik v mislih to) ali za kandidate s fizično nesposobnostjo.
Whilst it was true that these derogation clauses were no longer included in notices of competition published by the Commission, the eligibility criteria had also changed compared to previous notices of competitions.
Res je, da te klavzule o odstopanju niso bile več vključene v objave razpisov Komisije, merilo primernosti pa se je v primerjavi s prejšnjimi objavami zaposlitve tudi spremenilo.
For example, the competition referred to by the complainant had still included an age limit (45 years).
Objava razpisa, na katero se je skliceval pritožnik, je npr. še vedno vključevala starostno mejo (45 let).
Differences between notices of competition did not constitute discrimination or failure to comply with the principle of equal opportunities.
Razlike v besedilih razpisov niso ustvarjale diskriminacij e oziroma nespoštovanja načela enakih možnosti.
The criteria and conditions laid down in notice of competition COM/A/2/02 applied equally to all candidates who were in the same position, regardless of whether they were male or female.
Kriteriji in pogoji iz objave razpisa COM/A/2/02 so veljali enakovredno za vse kandidate v enakem položaju, ne glede na njihov spol.
Alleged discrimination on the grounds of age in competition COM/A/2/02
Domnevna starostna diskriminacij a v objavi razpisa COM/A/2/02
1.1 In the summer of 2002, the Commission published a competition for assistant administrators (COM/A/2/02) in the fields of agriculture, fisheries and environment.
1.1 Poleti 2002 je Komisij a objavila razpis za pomožne uradnike (COM/A/2/02) za področje kmetijstva, ribištva in okolja.
Candidates needed to have a university degree but no professional experience.
Kandidati so morali imeti univerzitetno diplomo, toda nobenih poklicnih izkušenj.
However, the notice of competition contained the following provision (point A.II.2.b): “You will be allowed to sit the competition if you obtained the university degree required for admission a er 27 September 1997.”
Vendar je objava razpisa vsebovala naslednjo določbo (točka A.II.2.b): “Pri razpisu boste lahko sodelovali, če ste zahtevano univerzitetno diplomo pridobili po 27. septembru 1997.”
The complainant, a Commission official, considered that this condition amounted to discrimination on the grounds of age.
Pritožnik, uradnik Komisije, je menil, da pogoj predstavlja starostno diskriminacijo. o.
1.2 The Commission pointed out that candidates were also eligible if they had obtained a postgraduate qualification directly relevant to the areas of activity concerned a er 27 September 1999.
1.2 Komisij a je poudarila, da so bili kandidati prav tako primerni, če so po 27. septembru 1999 zaključili podiplomski študij , neposredno povezan s področjem dejavnosti.
In the Commission’s view, the relevant competition and competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators that had been published with the said competition should be considered together.
Po mnenju Komisij e bi morali skupaj obravnavati zadevni razpis ter razpis COM/A/1/02 za uradnike, ki je bil objavljen skupaj z njim.
For competition COM/A/1/02, the date of the degree was irrelevant, and the only requirement was that by 27 September 2002 (the closing date for the submission of applications) candidates had to have at least three years’ professional experience corresponding to the duties concerned.
Za objavo razpisa COM/A/1/02 je bil datum pridobitve diplome nepomemben, edina zahteva je bila, da so kandidati do 27. septembra 2002 (zadnji dan za oddajo prijav) morali imeti vsaj tri leta poklicnih izkušenj, ustreznih za to delovno mesto.