natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect, the Ombudsman emphasised that exceptional circumstances such as bereavement may be accepted by those authorities as a reasonable explanation for a beneficiary’s failure to check the correctness of payments made to bank accounts.
Glede na to je varuh človekovih pravic navedel, da lahko ti organi sprejmejo izredne okoliščine, kot je izguba ljubljene osebe, kot razumno obrazložitev za to, da prejemnik ni preveril pravilnosti izplačil na bančnih računih.
In view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman therefore invited the Commission to consider whether it would be fair and reasonable to cancel, or meaningfully reduce, the recovery order.
Ob upoštevanju izrednih okoliščin tega primera je varuh človekovih pravic zato pozval Komisijo, da razmisli, ali bi bilo pošteno in razumno preklicati ali smiselno zmanjšati nalog za izterjavo.
In its reply, the Commission maintained that it had acted in accordance with relevant legal provisions.
Komisija je v odgovoru vztrajala pri stališču, da je ravnala v skladu z ustreznimi zakonskimi predpisi.
Although it agreed that the overpayment resulted from an error it had commi4 ed, the Commission explained that error by the fact that December was the month during which the annual adaptation of the pension took place.
Čeprav se je strinjala, da je bilo preplačilo posledica njene lastne napake, je razložila, da je do napake prišlo, ker se v decembru izvaja letna prilagoditev pokojnin.
Thus, it still had to pay to the estate of the complainant’s father the annual “adaptation” of his pension corresponding to the period from July to November 1998.
Tako je še vedno morala plačati v korist pritožnikovega očeta letno „prilagoditev“ pokojnine za obdobje od julija do novembra 1998.
The Ombudsman took note of the fact that some of the multiple payments made to the estate of the complainant’s father in December 1998 had been duly paid, whereas others had not been duly paid.
Varuh človekovih pravic je upošteval dejstvo, da je bilo nekaj plačil, izplačanih v korist pritožnikovega očeta v decembru 1998, izplačanih upravičeno, ostala pa so bila izplačana neupravičeno.
In light of this, the Ombudsman could not support the argument that the undue nature of the payment was “patently” such that the complainant could not have been unaware of it.
Glede na to varuh ni mogel podpreti trditve, da je bila neupravičenost plačila tako „očitna“, da jih pritožnik ni mogel prezreti.
The Ombudsman emphasised that in the present case the Commission was dealing with a person who was neither a “servant” nor an “o cial” and who could not be presumed to have the special responsibility required from o cials and servants as regards payments made to them.
Varuh je poudaril, da je Komisija v tem primeru obravnavala osebo, ki ni niti „uradnik“ niti „uslužbenec“ in za katero se ni moglo domnevati, da bo nosila posebno odgovornost, ki se zahteva od uradnikov in uslužbencev, kar zadeva izplačila, ki so jim izplačana.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman made a dra recommendation to the Commission to consider whether, in addition to being fair and reasonable, it would be in accordance with the applicable rules, to cancel the recovery order.
Glede na navedeno je varuh človekovih pravic sestavil osnutek priporočila, v katerem je Komisiji predlagal, da razmisli, ali bi bilo poleg poštenosti in razumnosti tudi skladno z veljavnimi predpisi, da prekliče nalog za izterjavo.
CASES CLOSEDFOR OTHER REASONS
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUČENIIZ DRUGIH RAZLOGOV
Refusal to organise new wri4 en tests for a candidate who gave birth one day before the tests
Zavrnitev organiziranja novih pisnih preizkusov za kandidatko, ki je rodila dan pred preizkusi
Summary of decision on complaint 3278/2004/ELB against the European Parliament
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3278/2004/ELB zoper Evropski parlament
The complainant applied for an internal competition organised by Parliament, mentioning that she was pregnant and noting the likely date of the delivery, that is, 17 June 2004.
Pritožnica se je prijavila na notranji natečaj, ki ga je organiziral Parlament, pri čemer je omenila, da je noseča, ter navedla verjetni datum poroda, in sicer 17. junij 2004.
She was invited to the tests, which took place on 2 July 2004, and gave birth one day before.
Prejela je vabilo na preizkus, ki je potekal 2. julija 2004, rodila pa je dan pred tem.
On the same day that she gave birth, she informed Parliament that she would not be able to a4 end the tests and requested that she be allowed to take them at a later date.
Isti dan, ko je rodila, je obvestila Parlament, da se preizkusov ne bo mogla udeležiti, in prosila za dovoljenje, da jih opravlja na poznejši datum. Parlament je prošnjo zavrnil. V svoji pritožbi je pritožnica navedla, da je ta zavrnitev diskriminatorna.
Following a relevant friendly solution proposal and drarecommendation by the Ombudsman, he concluded that the challenged refusal did not appear to reflect a fair balancing of the competing interests involved.
Po ustreznem predlogu za prijateljsko rešitev in osnutku priporočila je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da ta zavrnitev ne odraža pravičnega usklajevanja različnih vpletenih interesov.
A er recalling the fundamental principles of non-discrimination on the basis of gender and of respect for private and family life, the Ombudsman noted that, in the context of gender classifications, or classifications involving burdens upon a fundamental right, the defender of the challenged classification has to show that the classification serves a legitimate objective of general interest and that the means employed are proportional to the achievement of this objective.
Varuh človekovih pravic je po sklicevanju na temeljna načela nediskriminatornosti na podlagi spola ter spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja sklenil, da mora zagovornik sporne razporeditve v smislu razporeditve po spolu ali razporeditve, ki ovira temeljne pravice, pokazati, da služi taka razporeditev zakonitemu cilju, ki je v splošnem interesu, in da so uporabljeni ukrepi sorazmerni za doseganje tega cilja.
The Ombudsman found that the contested decision involved de facto gender discrimination and that such a refusal may make the exercise of the fundamental freedom of procreation much less a 4 ractive to female candidates and, hence, may involve a real and appreciable burden upon their right to respect for private life.
Varuh človekovih pravic je sklenil, da je sporna odločitev vključevala de facto diskriminacijo na podlagi spola in da lahko taka zavrnitev vodi do tega, da postane kandidatkam temeljna svoboda do razmnoževanja veliko manj privlačna, s čimer je lahko njihova pravica do spoštovanja zasebnega življenja dejansko in precej ovirana.
Therefore, Parliament had to defend its contested decision.
Zato je moral Parlament zagovarjati svojo sporno odločitev.
As to Parliament’s reference to the principle of equal treatment of candidates and the relevant requirement that the wri4 en tests be conducted on the same date for all candidates, the Ombudsman considered that this was a legitimate objective of general interest, the pursuit of which might, but did not by itself, justify the upholding of the challenged decision.
Glede sklicevanja Parlamenta na načelo enake obravnave kandidatov in ustrezen pogoj, da se pisne preizkuse izvede na isti dan za vse kandidate, je varuh človekovih pravic mnenja, da je to zakoniti cilj, ki je v splošnem interesu, in da bi izpolnjevanje tega lahko, vendar samo po sebi ni, upravičilo potrditev sporne odločitve.
Parliament, which admi4 ed that it could have organised the test at a later date, failed to show that it complied with the principle of proportionality, which requires a fair balancing of the competing principles and interests involved.
Parlament, ki je priznal, da bi lahko pripravil preizkus na poznejši datum, ni dokazal, da je deloval v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti, ki zahteva pravično ravnovesje med različnimi vpletenimi načeli in interesi.
In particular, Parliament did not demonstrate that, in establishing the date of the test, it took properly into account, in light of Case 130/75 Prais v Council29, the information it had received from the complainant about the likely date of the childbirth.
Parlament zlasti ni dokazal, da je pri določitvi datuma preizkusa upošteval, v skladu z zadevo 130/75 Prais zoper Svet29, podatek, ki ga je prejel od pritožnice o verjetnem datumu rojstva otroka.
In this context, Parliament appeared to have failed to give due consideration to the inherent uncertainty in the date of the labour; the postnatal physical condition of the woman who had given birth; and the time needed for an adequate recovery, for the purposes of her participation in the competition.
S tem v zvezi se zdi, da Parlament za namene udeležbe pritožnice na natečaju ni namenil potrebnega razmisleka glede negotovosti, ki obstaja zaradi datuma poroda, poporodnega fizičnega stanja žensk, ki so rodile, in časa, ki je potreben za ustrezno okrevanje.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the challenged refusal was not well-founded.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato sklenil, da sporna odločitev ni zadostno utemeljena.
Since, however, the complainant meanwhile withdrew her claims and in light of Parliament’s commitment to revise the conditions for the participation in future competitions of women who have recently given birth and its policy on the se4 ing of the date of tests for pregnant candidates, the Ombudsman decided not to further pursue the ma4 er.
Ker pa je pritožnica medtem umaknila svoje zahtevke in zaradi obljube Parlamenta, da bo ponovno pregledal pogoje za udeležbo žensk, ki so pred kratkim rodile, in svojo politiko glede določitve datuma
Case C-130/75 Prais v Council [1976] ECR 1589.
Zadeva C-130/75 Prais zoper Svet [1976] Recueil 1589.
Medical coverage of former spouses under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
Zdravstveno zavarovanje bivših zakoncev v okviru skupnega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja
Summary of decisions on confidential complaints 368/2005/(MF)(BU)BM and 2776/2005/ID against the European Commission
Povzetek odločb o zaupnih pritožbah 368/2005/(MF)(BU)BM in 2776/2005/ID zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The divorced former spouse of an o cial of the Commission was diagnosed with a serious illness.
Pri pritožniku, bivšem zakoncu uradnice Komisije, so odkrili hudo bolezen.
In response to an application for the reimbursement of medical costs under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for O cials of the European Communities (JSIS), the complainant was informed that medical insurance only lasted for a period of one year following divorce.
V odgovoru na zahtevek po povračilu stroškov zdravljenja v okviru skupnega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja Evropskih skupnosti (JSIS) je bil pritožnik obveščen, da zdravstveno zavarovanje velja samo za obdobje enega leta po ločitvi.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should extend this period.
Pritožnik je menil, da bi morala Komisija to obdobje podaljšati.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that the Commission had agreed to grant the complainant an additional period of insurance cover as regards expenses resulting from the serious illness.
Preiskava, ki jo je opravil varuh človekovih pravic, je razkrila, da je Komisija privolila v to, da pritožniku odobri dodatno obdobje zavarovalnega kritja za stroške, povezane z zdravljenjem hude bolezni.
The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission had taken the initiative to invite the complainant to contact its services if the treatment of the serious illness had to be continued once the JSIS coverage had expired.
Varuh človekovih pravic je nadalje ugotovil, da je Komisija na lastno pobudo pozvala pritožnika, naj se obrne na njene službe, če se bo zdravljenje hude bolezni po izteku kritja iz JSIS moralo nadaljevati.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the approach taken by the Commission appeared to be consistent with the complainant’s fundamental rights to health care and to good administration,
Varuh človekovih pravic je poudaril, da je pristop Komisije na splošno očitno v skladu s pritožnikovimi temeljnimi pravicami do zdravstvenega varstva in načeli dobrega upravljanja30
The Ombudsman therefore found that no further inquiries into the complainant’s taken together claim were necessary.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato menil, da nadaljnja preiskava pritožnikovega zahtevka ni več potrebna.
As regards the general issue, the Commission acknowledged, in the course of the inquiry, that it had now become aware of a lacuna in the area of sickness insurance cover for ex-spouses of o cials.
Glede osnovnega problema pa je Komisija med preiskavo priznala, da se je začela zavedati vrzeli v kritju zdravstvenega zavarovanja za nekdanje zakonce uradnikov.
It informed the Ombudsman that it had introduced a new general implementing provision, with e � ect from 1 July 2007, to allow the JSIS to continue, subject to certain conditions, to cover o cials’ ex-spouses su� ering from serious illnesses.
Varuha človekovih pravic je obvestila o uvedbi nove splošne izvedbene določbe, ki začne učinkovati 1. julija 2007 in omogoča, da se pod določenimi pogoji kritje iz JSIS za nekdanje zakonce uradnikov, ki imajo hudo bolezen, nadaljuje.
The Ombudsman subsequently dealt with a similar issue in the context of case 2776/2005/ID.
Podoben problem je varuh človekovih pravic obravnaval v okviru zadeve 2776/2005/ID.
In that case, the Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed that the Commission had decided to prolong the complainant’s medical coverage by the JSIS for almost two years, because the complainant was su� ering from a grave illness, the treatment of which apparently required considerable expenses.
V tem primeru je preiskava razkrila, da se je Komisija odločila podaljšati zdravstveno zavarovanje pritožnika v okviru JSIS za skorajda dve leti, ker je leta zbolel za hudo boleznijo, pri kateri so stroški zdravljenja precej visoki.
The Ombudsman praised the Commission for its decision to prolong the JSIS coverage, noting that it reflected a sensitive and pragmatic consideration of the complainant’s medical condition.
Varuh človekovih pravic je Komisijo pohvalil za odločitev, da podaljša pritožnikovo kritje iz JSIS, saj je s tem pokazala razumevanje in pragmatičnost pri obravnavanju zdravstvenega stanja pritožnika.
The blanking out of names of industry lobbyists
Brisanje imen industrijskih lobistov
Summary of decision on complaint 3269/2005/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3269/2005/TN zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The complaint, which was submi4 ed on behalf of an NGO, concerned the Commission’s blanking out of the names of industry lobbyists in documents to which access had been granted under Regulation 1049/200131.
V imenu nevladne organizacij e je bila predložena pritožba, ker je Komisija izbrisala imena industrijskih lobistov v dokumentih, do katerih je bil dovoljen dostop v skladu z Uredbo 1049/200131
Articles 35 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Člena 35 in 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije. e.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS privacy and the integrity of the individual” as stipulated in Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001,
Pritožnik je navedel, da Komisija ni izpolnila svoje dolžnosti zagotavljanja ustreznega dostopa do dokumentov.
and that it wrongly relied on Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001
Trdil je, da Komisija ni razložila, kako bi razkritje zadevnih imen „oslabilo varstvo zasebnosti in integritete posameznika“, kot je določeno v členu 4(1)(b) Uredbe 1049/2001, in da se je pri brisanju imen neupravičeno opirala na člen 8(b) Uredbe 45/200132.
The Commission argued that disclosure of the names of the individuals concerned could interfere with their right to privacy, which is protected by Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data.
Komisija je trdila, da bi lahko razkritje imen zadevnih posameznikov posegalo v njihovo pravico do zasebnosti, ki je zaščitena z zakonodajo Skupnosti na področju varstva osebnih podatkov.
The Commission considered its decision to blank out the names to be in accordance with the understanding of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), as explained in his background paper on public access to documents and data protection.
Komisija je menila, da je njena odločitev, da izbriše imena, v skladu z mnenjem evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov, kot je razloženo v njegovem osnovnem dokumentu o javnem dostopu do dokumentov in varstvu podatkov.
The Ombudsman wrote to the EDPS, asking him to comment on the position taken by the Commission, in particular on the applicability of Regulation 45/2001 to the present case.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pisal evropskemu nadzorniku za varstvo podatkov in ga prosil, da predstavi svoje mnenje o stališču, ki ga je zavzela Komisija, zlasti glede uporabe Uredbe 45/2001 v tem primeru.
In reply to the Ombudsman’s request, the EDPS stated that he wanted to await the Court of First Instance’s judgment in Case T-194/04, Bavarian Lager v Commission, before examining the present case.
Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov je v odgovoru navedel, da želi počakati na sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevi T-194/04 Bavarian Lager zoper Komisijo, preden bi preučil ta primer.
The EDPS explained that he had intervened in the case in question in support of the applicant, because in his view, the position of the Commission did not lead to a satisfactory outcome.
Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov je razložil, da je v navedeni zadevi posredoval v prid vlagatelja, ker po njegovem mnenju stališče Komisije ne bo privedlo do zadovoljivega rezultata.
Since it was not clear when the judgment in Case T-194/04 would be delivered, the Ombudsman decided to examine the present case without waiting for the Court’s judgment and the EDPS’s opinion.
Ker ni bilo jasno, kdaj bo izrečena sodba v zadevi T-194/04, je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da bo primer preučil, ne da bi čakal na sodbo Sodišča in mnenje evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov.
The Ombudsman then analysed the case in light of the EDPS’s guidelines, according to which three conditions have to be fulfilled in order for access to be refused under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Varuh je primer nato analiziral glede na smernice evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov, v skladu s katerimi morajo za zavrnitev dostopa v skladu s členom 4(1)(b) Uredbe 1049/2001 biti izpolnjeni trije pogoji.
The Ombudsman did not consider the Commission to have established that any of the three conditions was fulfilled.
Po mnenju varuha Komisija ni dokazala, da je izpolnjen kateri koli od teh treh pogojev.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the complainant’s allegation appeared to be founded.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato zaključil, da so domneve pritožnika verjetno utemeljene.
In such a situation, the Ombudsman would normally seek to find a friendly solution, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
V skladu s členom 3(5) Statuta varuha človekovih pravic se varuh v takih primerih navadno zavzema za iskanje sporazumne rešitve.
However, noting that the issue of blanking out names of persons in documents to which access had been granted under Regulation 1049/2001 was under review by the Court of First Instance in Case T-194/04, the Ombudsman took the view that it would not be useful to propose a friendly solution, since the Commission would not be likely to take any action before the Court delivered its judgment.
Ker pa je Sodišče prve stopnje trenutno obravnavalo vprašanje brisanja imen oseb v dokumentih, do katerih je dovoljen dostop v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001, je varuh človekovih pravic v zadevi T-194/04 zavzel stališče, da zavzemanje za sporazumno rešitev ne bi bilo smiselno, saj Komisija verjetno ne bo ukrepala, preden Sodišče ne izreče sodbe. Varuh je menil, da ni nobenih razlogov za nadaljnje preučevanje primera, zato je primer zaključil.
He pointed out that the complainant could consider presenting a new complaint to the Ombudsman once the Court has given judgment in Case T-194/04 and the Commission has acted thereon.
Izpostavil pa je, da bi pritožnik lahko razmislil o vložitvi nove pritožbe pri varuhu človekovih pravic, takoj ko bo Sodišče izreklo sodbo v zadevi T-194/04 in se Komisija nanjo odzove s svojimi ukrepi.
Note: The Court of First Instance delivered its judgment in Case T-194/04 on 8 November 2007.
Opomba: Sodišče prve stopnje je sodbo v zadevi T-194/04 izreklo 8. novembra 2007.
The Court annulled the decision of the Commission refusing to disclose the names of all participants at a meeting in the context of proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations.
Sodišče je razveljavilo odločitev Komisije, s katero je Komisija zavrnila razkritje imen vseh udeležencev sestanka v okviru postopka v zvezi z neizpolnjevanjem obveznosti.
Alleged abuse of power with regard to access to data
Domnevna zloraba pooblastil pri dostopu do podatkov
Summary of decision on complaint 183/2006/MF against Europol
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 183/2006/MF zoper Europol
The complainant requested the French Data Protection Commission (CNIL) to ascertain whether data relating to her were stored by Europol.
Pritožnica je zaprosila Francosko komisijo za varstvo podatkov (CNIL), da preveri, ali ima Europol shranjene podatke o njej.
The CNIL forwarded the le4 er to Europol, which informed the complainant that no personal data concerning her, to which she was entitled to have access in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Europol Convention in combination with the applicable French legislation, were stored at Europol. The Appeals Commi4 ee upheld Europol’s decision.
Komisija CNIL je pismo posredovala Europolu, ki je pritožnico obvestil, da nima o njej shranjenih nobenih osebnih podatkov, do katerih bi imela pravico dostopa v skladu
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.
Uredba (ES) št. 45/2001 Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2000 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL 2001 L 8, str. 1.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Europol had wrongly refused to give information about data relating to her and to grant her access to these data.
Pritožnica je v svoji pritožbi, ki jo je naslovila na varuha človekovih pravic, trdila, da je Europol ravnal nepravilno, ker je zavrnil njeno prošnjo, naj ji posreduje informacij e o podatkih, ki se nanašajo nanjo, in ker ji ni odobril dostopa do teh podatkov.
In her view, this constituted an abuse of power.
Po njenem mnenju je to pomenilo zlorabo pooblastil.
The complainant further alleged that Europol had failed carefully to deal with her appeal to the Appeals Commi4 ee because the French translation of its reply was addressed to another appellant.
Pritožnica je nadalje trdila, da Europol ni skrbno obravnaval njene pritožbe, ki jo je naslovila na Komisijo za pritožbe, ker je bil francoski prevod njenega odgovora poslan drugemu pritožniku.
The Director of Europol informed the Ombudsman that the Ombudsman’s le4 er asking Europol for an opinion on the complaint had been forwarded to Europol’s Joint Supervisory Body (JSB).
Direktor Europola je obvestil varuha človekovih pravic, da je bilo njegovo pismo, v katerem je zaprosil Europol za mnenje o pritožbi, poslano Skupnemu nadzornemu organu Europola.
In its le4 er to the Ombudsman, the JSB stated that the decision of the Appeals Commi4 ee was binding for all parties concerned.
Skupni nadzorni organ je v svojem pismu varuhu človekovih pravic navedel, da je sklep Komisije za pritožbe zavezujoč za vse zadevne stranke.
Article 195(1) of the EC Treaty provides that the Ombudsman conducts inquiries into possible instances of maladministration, unless the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings.
Člen 195(1) Pogodbe ES predvideva, da varuh človekovih pravic opravlja poizvedbe o morebitnih nepravilnostih, razen če so oziroma so bila domnevna dejanja predmet sodnega postopka.