natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
From the available evidence, it appears that the Commission initiated the complainant’s change of status from auxiliary to temporary agent.
Prejela je tudi plačilne liste, ki niso omenjali tajniškega dodatka.
Finally, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not claimed interest.
Vendar pa je glede na to, da tudi sama nosi del odgovornosti, Komisij a pritožnici dala polovico vrednosti zneska.
Thus, even if the Commission pays the full allowance, as the complainant claims it should, the complainant will still suffer financial loss as a result of her failure to use earlier opportunities to correct the Commission’s error.
1.3 Varuh navaja, da je Komisij a sprejela, da je pritožnica upravičena do terjatve tajniškega dodatka skozi vso zadevno obdobje in da Komisij a ni trdila, da jo kakršno koli pravilo ali načelo ovira plačila celotnega zneska za nazaj, do katerega je pritožnica upravičena.
The European Ombudsman suggested that the Commission should take action to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness and unfairness by considering, in the specific circumstances of this case, whether to pay the full amount of the secretarial allowance for the period in question.
1.5 V luči zgoraj navedenega je Varuh začasno zaključil, da se odločitev Komisije, da pritožnici dodeli le polovico dodatka, lahko zdi samoljubna in nepravična, ter da naj Komisij a zato znova pozorno oceni svoj položaj v posebnih okoliščinah tega primera.
The Commission’s response
Odgovor Komisij e
In reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal, the Commission points out that it has no legal obligation towards the complainant, who did not contest the decisions within the prescribed deadlines.
V odgovoru na predlog Varuha je Komisij a poudarila, da do pritožnice nima zakonskih obveznosti, saj leta ni spodbijala odločitve v za to predpisanih rokih.
The Commission considers, however, that in view of the points made by the European Ombudsman, the present case is exceptional and justifies the granting of an additional ex gratia compensation.
Vendar pa Komisij a meni, da je ta primer v luči poudarkov Varuha izjemen in utemeljuje dodelitev dodatnega ex gratia nadomestila.
On 2 June 2003, the complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that she considers that a friendly solution has been achieved.
2. junij a 2003 je pritožnica po telefonu obvestila službe Evropskega varuha, da je bila dosežena sporazumna rešitev.
The claim for retrospective payment of a secretarial allowance
Zahteva za plačilo tajniškega dodatka za nazaj
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to pay her the entire amount of the secretarial allowance to which she was entitled.
1.1 Pritožnica trdi, da ji Komisij a ni plačala celotnega zneska tajniškega dodatka, do katerega je bila upravičena.
She claims that the Commission should pay her this amount retrospectively.
Trdi, da ji mora Komisij a plačati ta znesek za nazaj.
1.2 A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the Commission to propose a friendly solution in accordance with Article 3 (5) of the Statute.
1.2 Po podrobni obravnavi mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnice je Varuh v skladu s členom 3 (5) statuta predsedniku Komisij e pisno predlagal sporazumno rešitev.
1.3 In reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal, the Commission pointed out that it had no legal obligation towards the complainant, who did not contest the decisions within the prescribed deadlines.
1.3 V odgovoru na predlog Varuha je Komisij a poudarila, da do pritožnice nima zakonskih obveznosti, saj leta ni spodbijala odločitve v za to predpisanih rokih.
Following the Ombudsman’s initiative, it appears that a friendly solution to the complaint has been agreed between the Commission and the complainant.
Po pobudi Varuha je razvidno, da sta se pritožnik in Komisij a dogovorila o sporazumni rešitvi.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Varuh zato primer zaključuje.
COMMISSION AGREES TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO JOURNALIST AFTER OMBUDSMAN’S PROPOSAL FOR FRIENDLY SOLUTION
NA PREDLOG EVROPSKEGA VARUHA ZA SPORAZUMNO REŠITEV SE KOMISIJ A STRINJA S POSREDOVANJEM INFORMACIJ E NOVINARJU
Decision on complaint 1402/2002/GG against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1402/2002/GG zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant is the Brussels correspondent of the “Stern”, a German weekly.
Pritožnik je dopisnik nemškega tednika Stern iz Bruslja.
Since February 2002, the publication has covered a number of alleged financial irregularities concerning the European Commission, particularly at Eurostat, the Statistical Offi ce of the European Communities (one of the Directorates-General of the Commission).
Publikacija od februarja 2002 pokriva število domnevnih finančnih nepravilnosti v zvezi z Evropsko komisijo, zlasti v Eurostatu, Statističnem uradu Evropskih skupnosti (eden od generalnih direktoratov Komisije).
The complainant submi ed copies of wri en questions and le ers that he had sent to the Commission on 12 March 2002, 26 March 2002, 28 March 2002, 5 April 2002, 8 July 2002, 22 July 2002, 26 July 2002 and 7 August 2002 as well as some replies from the Commission.
Pritožnik je predložil kopij e pisnih vprašanj in pisem, ki jih je na Komisij o poslal 12. marca 2002, 26. marca 2002, 28. marca 2002, 5. aprila 2002, 8. julij a 2002, 22. julij a 2002, 26. julij a 2002 in 7. avgusta 2002 ter nekaj odgovorov Komisije.
Several of these questions concerned the contracts that a company called Eurogramme had concluded with Eurostat.
Nekaj teh vprašanj se je nanašalo na pogodbe, ki jih je podjetje z imenom Eurogramme sklenilo z Eurostatom.
The complainant alleged that time and again the Commission had refused to provide information on the grounds that the relevant questions concerned ongoing investigations by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je Komisij a znova zavrnila posredovanje podatkov z razlogom, da se vprašanja tičejo trajajoče preiskave s strani OLAF-a, Evropskega urada za boj proti prevaram.
According to the complainant, the Commission on occasions even refused to provide basic information such as what contracts the Commission had entered into with a particular company.
Po navedbah pritožnika je Komisij a tu in tam celo zavrnila posredovanje osnovnih informacij , kot npr. katere pogodbe je Komisij a sklenila z določenimi podjetji.
The complainant considered that the Commission’s behaviour was incorrect and impeded the publication’s efforts to inform the public about the relevant issues.
Pritožnik meni, da obnašanje Komisij e ni bilo pravilno in je oviralo prizadevanja publikacije, da javnost obvešča o ustreznih temah.
The complainant put forward a number of arguments to support his case.
V podporo svojemu mnenju je pritožnik predložil precejšnje število argumentov.
First, he took the view that the Commission had given no explanations as to how providing the information requested could affect the investigations carried out by OLAF.
Najprej je zavzel stališče, da Komisij a ni podala nobene razlage, kako bi lahko posredovanje zahtevane informacij e vplivalo na preiskave, ki jih je izvajal OLAF.
In his view, publications in the press would on the contrary rather appear to have speeded up such investigations.
Po njegovem mnenju bi objave v medijih nasprotno prej pospešile take preiskave. Drugič, pritožnik je pripomnil, da ni bilo dokaza, da bi OLAF Komisij o prosil, da naj ne daje zadevnih informacij .
Third, the complainant argued that investigations by OLAF sometimes took an extraordinary amount of time.
Tretjič, je pritožnik trdil, da so preiskave s strani OLAF-a včasih trajale izredno dolgo.
According to him, some of the allegations concerning Eurostat were being investigated since 1998.
Po njegovih navedbah so se nekatere trditve o Eurostatu preiskovale od leta 1998.
The complainant stressed that the Commission would thus be able to withhold basic information for years, not to mention subsequent criminal or administrative investigations that could also be used as a reason for not disclosing information.
Pritožnik je poudaril, da bi Komisij a tako lahko več let zadržala osnovne informacije, da se ne bi omenjale poznejše preiskave kaznivega dejanja in notranje preiskave, ki bi prav tako lahko bile razlog za nerazkrivanje informacij .
Fourth, the complainant argued that the Commission behaved in an arbitrary way, given that on occasions it answered questions relating to issues that were the subject-ma er of investigations by OLAF whilst on other occasions it refused to do so.
Četrtič, je pritožnik trdil, da se je Komisij a obnašala samovoljno, saj je tu in tam odgovarjala na vprašanja, ki so bila predmet preiskav OLAF-a, medtem ko je drugič zavračala možnost odgovora.
Finally, the complainant argued that the Commission sometimes arbitrarily changed the reasons it gave for refusing to provide the information requested.
Končno je pritožnik trdil, da je Komisij a včasih samovoljno spreminjala razloge za zavrnitev posredovanja zahtevanih informacij .
According to the complainant, in one case the Commission had first informed him that the relevant issues were being verified, then wri en that the relevant questions could not be answered “at present” before finally informing him that it could not provide the relevant information “as it partly relates to an ongoing OLAF investigation”.
Po navedbah pritožnika ga je Komisij a v nekem primeru najprej obvestila, da se zadevna vprašanja preverjajo, nato je napisala, da na zadevna vprašanja “trenutno” ne morejo odgovarjati, potem pa ga je končno obvestila, da mu zadevnih informacij ne more posredovati, “saj so deloma povezana s trajajočo preiskavo OLAF-a”.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should answer the questions that had been submi ed to it without success since March 2002.
Pritožnik trdi, da bi Komisij a morala odgovoriti na vprašanja, ki so ji bila neuspešno posredovana od maja 2002.
THE INQUIRY
Sklepi preiskav
The Commission’s Code of good administrative behaviour applied equally to requests for information by citizens and to requests for information by the media.
Evropski kodeks primernega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev Komisij e enako velja tako v primeru zahtev po informacijah s strani državljanov kot s strani medijev.
Media (i.e. journalists) were not entitled under the present Code to any particular and/or additional rights beyond what the Code foresees for dealing with inquiries from the general public.
Mediji (t.j. novinarji) pod sedanjim kodeksom niso upravičeni do kakršne koli posebne in/ali dodatne pravice od tistih, ki jih kodeks predvideva, ko gre za preiskave javnosti.
The Press and Communication Service had been scrupulous in adhering to the deadlines stipulated, that is to say, a reply has to be sent within fi een working days of the receipt of inquiries.
Služba za tisk in komuniciranje je bila zelo natančna pri upoštevanju določenih rokov, kar pomeni, da je odgovor potrebno poslati v okviru petnajstih delovnih dni od obvestila o preiskavi.
However, the Commission acknowledged that no reply had been given to the complainant’s message of 5 April 2002 and apologised for this omission.
Komisij a pa je potrdila, da ni odgovorila na pritožnikovo sporočilo z dne 5. aprila 2002 in se je za to opustitev tudi opravičila.
The perception that the Commission had been arbitrary in its decisions regarding requests for sensitive information arose from the fact that there had to be a case by case approach.
Komisij o se je pri njenih odločitvah v zvezi z zahtevami za občutljive informacij e dojemalo kot samovoljno, ker je pristop za obravnavo vsakega primera posebej nujen.
The inquiries of the complainant for factual information had been properly answered by the Commission.
Povpraševanje pritožnika po dejanskih informacijah je dobilo primeren odgovor Komisije.
However, most of the inquiries cited in the complaint did not relate to straightforward existing information, but required that the Commission in its reply take formal positions on very specific issues.
Vendar pa večina povpraševanja, navedenega v pritožbi, ni bila naravnost usmerjena k obstoječim informacijam, ampak je zahtevala, da Komisij a v svojem odgovoru o posameznih vprašanjih zavzame uradno stališče.
In this respect the Commission had a discretionary power over the position it wanted to take and when to take it and could, therefore, reserve the right not to make statements on an issue.
V zvezi s tem je Komisij a imela diskrecijsko pravico nad tem, če bo in kdaj bo zavzela stališče in je zato lahko ohranila pravico do nepodajanja stališč o vprašanjih.
All requests for documents were dealt with under Regulation No. 1049/2001 on access to documents.
Vse zahteve za dokumente so se obravnavale v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 o dostopu do dokumentov.
The Commission was of the opinion that the specific inquiry by the complainant – requesting a list of all existing contracts concluded with a specific company – fell within the remit of this regulation.
Komisij a je bila mnenja, da je specifična poizvedba pritožnika - zahteva seznama vseh obstoječih sklenjenih pogodb s posameznimi podjetji - znotraj okvira te uredbe.
There was no database which provided a comprehensive list of contracts.
Ni bilo podatkovnih baz, ki bi zagotovile izčrpen seznam pogodb.
A list of “commitments” to companies called “Eurogramme” did however exist, and this had been used to produce the contract list manually, in cooperation with the different Directorates-General.
Seznam “obvez” do podjetij z imenom “Eurogramme” je obstajal in se je uporabljal za ročno izdelavo pogodbenega seznama v sodelovanju z različnimi generalnimi direktorati.
The Commission considered that in this specific case, the requested list did not constitute a document that would fall under one of the exceptions provided under the regulation and could therefore be released to the complainant.
Komisij a je upoštevala, da zahtevani seznam v tem določenem primeru ni predstavljal dokumenta, za katerega bi veljala ena od izjem, ki jih nudi uredba in bi se tako lahko posredoval pritožniku.
A copy of the list of contracts with Eurogramme was a ached to the Commission’s opinion.
Kopij a seznama pogodb z Eurogrammom je bila priložena mnenju Komisije. e.
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint and made the following further comments:
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik vztrajal pri svoji pritožbi in nadalje izjavil:
The duty of public authorities to provide information was enshrined in the press law of the Member States and had its foundation also in the principle of the freedom of the press recognised throughout the Union.
Dolžnost javnih organov, da posredujejo informacije, je urejena z medijskim pravom držav članic, njeni temelji pa sežejo tudi v načelo svobode tiska, ki se priznava po vsej Evropi.
The Charter on Fundamental Rights also mentioned the right to “freedom of information”.
Tudi Listina o temeljnih pravicah omenja pravico do “svobode obveščanja”.
The Commission was of course free to decide as to how and when it should take a position.
Komisij a je seveda svobodna pri odločitvi, kako in kdaj naj zavzame stališče.
The questions put to the Commission however did not concern any expressions of opinion by the Commission but were aiming at facts such as Commission decisions, administrative acts and allegations that had been made in public or in documents and in respect of which a confirmation or rebu al was asked for.
Vendar pa vprašanja zastavljena Komisij i niso izsiljevala kakršnega koli mnenja Komisije, ampak so bila namenjena dejstvom, kot so odločitve Komisije, upravni ukrepi in trditve, ki so bili narejeni v javnosti ali dokumentih in za katere potrditev ali zavrnitev je bilo zaprošeno.
The question as to what conclusions the Commission had drawn from cases of bad management of Community funds was not a question aiming at an expression of opinion but had the purpose of finding out what the Commission had in fact done.
Vprašanje kot kakšni so zaključki Komisij e na podlagi primerov slabega upravljanja s financami Skupnosti, ni bilo vprašanje namenjeno izsiljevanju mnenja, ampak ugotavljanju, kako je Komisij a dejansko ukrepala.
If the Commission should have done nothing, this was also a fact the public was entitled to learn about.
Če Komisij a ne bi ukrepala, bi tudi to bilo dejstvo, ki ga je javnost upravičena vedeti.
OLAF practically always refused to provide information in relation to pending investigations.
Pritožnik trdi, da bi Komisij a morala spremeniti svojo upravno prakso in odgovoriti na vprašanja.
This applied to the inquiries of 7 June 2002, 16 June 2002 and 22 July 2002 (concerning the submission of a report) in their entirety and to part of the inquiry of 2 June 2002.
Kopij e vprašanj z dne 2. junij a 2002, 7. junij a 2002, 16. junij a 2002 in 22. julij a 200254 so bile priložene pritožnikovim pripombam.
54 were a ached to
NADALJNJE PREISKAVE
Copies of the questions of 2 June 2002, 7 June 2002, 16 June 2002 and 22 July 2002the complainant’s observations.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnika so bile očitno potrebne nadaljnje preiskave.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.
Varuh je tako prosil Komisijo, da oblikuje mnenje o pritožnikovih pripombah.
In its second opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je v svojem drugem mnenju izjavila:
The complainant did not specify to which article of the Charter he referred by mentioning the right to “freedom of information”.
Pritožnik ni navedel, na kateri člen Listine se je skliceval, ko je omenjal pravico do “svobode obveščanja”.
The Commission nevertheless presumed that the complainant referred to article 11 (“freedom of expression and information”) and article 42 (“right of access to documents”) of the Charter.
Vseeno pa je Komisij a predvidevala, da se je pritožnik skliceval na člen 11 (“svoboda izražanja in obveščanja”) in člen 42 (“pravica dostopa do dokumentov”) Listine.
Article 42 of the Charter had exactly the same wording as Article 255 of the EC Treaty.
Člen 42 Listine ima natanko enako besedilo kot člen 255 Pogodbe ES.
The principles and limits of the public’s right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents had been laid down in Regulation No. 1049/2001.
Načela in omejitve pravice javnosti do dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta in Komisij e so bila vzpostavljena z Uredbo 1049/2001.
The Commission’s Code of good administrative behaviour contained a commitment to answer inquiries in the most appropriate manner and as quickly as possible.
Kodeks Komisij e o primernem ravnanju javnih uslužbencev je zavezoval k najprimernejšemu in kar se da hitremu odgovoru na povpraševanje.
It did not oblige Commission staffto provide all the information requested.
Ne obvezuje pa osebja Komisije, da posreduje vse zahtevane informacije.
According to the Code, a member of staffcould consider that it was not in the Community interest for the information to be disclosed.
Skladno s kodeksom bi član osebja lahko menil, da razkritje informacij e ni v interesu Skupnosti.
In this case, the refusal to provide information should be justified. ed.
V tem primeru bi morala biti zavrnitev posredovanja informacij e opravičljiva.
Concerning the alleged lack of reasoning for the refusal to provide information, the Commission was of the opinion that both the existence of ongoing OLAF and Commission-internal investigations represented sufficient grounds for the refusal.
Glede domnevnega pomanjkanja razlogov za zavrnitev posredovanja informacije, je Komisij a menila, da trenutna preiskava OLAF-a in notranja preiskava Komisij e predstavljata zadostno podlago za zavrnitev.
All inquiries by the complainant for purely factual information had been properly answered or had been referred to as currently being the object of an investigation and that, therefore, the Commission could not answer at that specific point in time.
Vsa povpraševanja pritožnika po zgolj dejanskih informacijah so dobila primerne odgovore ali opozorilo, da so le-te predmet trenutne preiskave in da zato Komisij a ne more dati odgovora v tistem trenutku.
Questions relating to issues under investigation by OLAF should be addressed to OLAF.
Vprašanja s področij , ki jih preiskuje OLAF, se naslovijo na OLAF. Navesti pa je potrebno, da je bila politika OLAF-a taka, da ni komentiral preiskav, ki potekajo.
Likewise the Commission considered that it was not appropriate to provide information that could prejudice the proper conduct of investigations.
Komisij a je prav tako menila, da informacij ni bilo primerno posredovati, saj bi lahko prejudicirale korektno izvedbo preiskav.
Moreover, the protection of the purpose of investigations was a specific exception to the right of access to documents under Regulation No. 1049/2001.
Poleg tega je bila zaščita namena preiskav posebna izjema od pravice dostopa do dokumentov pod Uredbo 1049/2001.
It should be noted that this question is not identical with the question of the same date mentioned in the complaint.
Omeniti je potrebno, da to vprašanje ni identično vprašanju istega datuma s tistim, omenjenim v pritožbi.
The questions raised in the notes of 7 June and 22 July 2002 had been answered orally by telephone. In so far as the note of 16 June 2002 was concerned, the complainant had been asked to address the questions relating to corrective coefficients to Mr M., the spokesman responsible.
Če naj bi Komisij a menila, da na evropski ravni ni dolžna posredovati informacijnovinarjem, bi to kazalo na pomembno praznino v zakonodajni Skupnosti in Komisij a bi morala predložiti zakonodajni predlog, ki bi zapolnil to praznino.
The Commission noted, however, that the complainant’s questions were almost identical to some of the questions raised by Mrs Gabriele Stauner MEP in questions P-1805/02 and E-2807/02.
Po drugi strani pa to Komisij e ne bi opravičilo njenih odgovornosti, da deluje na osnovi jasnih in doslednih načel, ko posreduje informacije. e.
However, this was not the case at present.
Vendar pa to ni sedanji primer.
The Commission used the reference to investigations by OLAF in an arbitrary manner.
Komisij a se je samovoljno sklicevala na preiskave OLAF-a.
On occasions, the Commission did provide information, on others it did not.
Včasih je Komisij a posredovala informacije, drugič jih spet ni.
This was done not because of ongoing investigations by OLAF but for reasons that were not explained.
Razlog za to niso bile trajajoče preiskave OLAF-a, ampak nepojasnjeni razlogi.
The Commission was of course entitled to refuse to provide information in certain clearly defined cases (for example, disciplinary proceedings) in order to protect for example personality rights.
Komisij a je bila seveda upravičena zavrniti posredovanje informacij v določenih jasno definiranih primerih (na primer disciplinski postopki), da bi zaščitila na primer posameznikove pravice.
However, detailed reasons should be given for such refusals instead of a mere reference to an investigation by OLAF.
Vendar pa so bili namesto napotila na preiskavo OLAF-a potrebni podrobni razlogi za take zavrnitve.
It was pleasing to note that one of the questions – the one concerning Eurogramme – had been answered.
Prijetno je bilo videti, da je eno vprašanje - o Eurogrammu - bilo odgovorjeno.
It was however a reason for criticism that a complaint to the Ombudsman had been necessary to achieve this outcome.
Vendar pa obstaja razlog za kritiko, da je bila pritožba Varuhu potrebna za doseganje takega rezultata.
Neither the questions of 7 June 2002 nor those of 22 July 2002 had been answered, either in writing or orally.
Niti pisno niti ustno nista bili odgovorjeni vprašanji z dne 7. junij a 2002 in 22. julij a 2002.
It was telling that the Commission had neither submi ed any evidence to prove that it had answered these questions nor named the person who had answered them or the day when this had happened.
Razvidno je bilo, da Komisij a ni niti predložila ničesar, kar bi dokazovalo, da je odgovorila na ta vprašanja, niti imenovala osebe, ki je nanje odgovorila, ali dneva, ko se je to zgodilo.