natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In a further remark, the Ombudsman considered that it was not to be excluded that Parliament could deal with requests for access to documents made by oUcials without applying the provisions on public access laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, unless the applicant had made it clear that he wished his request to be dealt with on the basis of that Regulation.
Varuh je še pripomnil, da ni mogoÏe izkljuÏiti, da sme Parlament zahteve uradnikov za dostop do dokumentov obdelati brez upoštevanja doloÏb o dostopu javnosti iz Uredbe št. 1049/2001, razen Ïe prosilec izrazi željo, da se njegova zahteva obdela na podlagi te uredbe.
In the Ombudsman’s view, it was for Parliament to resolve any problems that might arise in this context, either generally or when confronted with a request for access to documents.
Vendar mora Parlament rešiti vse težave, ki bi utegnile nastati zaradi tega, ali nasploh ali takrat, ko prejme zahtevo za dostop do dokumentov, v vsakem primeru pa mora poskrbeti za hiter odgovor na uradno zahtevo za dostop.
The Ombudsman considered that Parliament should, in any event, ensure that a rapid reply be given to the oUcial’s request for access.
Varuh je še izrazil zaupanje, da je Parlament pripravljen uvesti ustrezne ukrepe za obravnavo zahtev uradnikov za dostop do dokumentov.
FAILURE TO REPLY TO A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
ZAHTEVA ZA INFORMACLE, NA KATERO NI BILO ODGOVORA
The complainant alleged that Parliament had failed to reply to two e-mail requests for information, concerning a Parliament resolution, that he had sent to Parliament’s “Civis” electronic mailbox.
Pritožnik je trdil, da Parlament ni odgovoril na dve e-poštni zahtevi za informac` e o resoluc`i Parlamenta, ki ju je poslal v njegov elektronski poštni nabiralnik „Civis“. Menil je, da bi mu moral Parlament odgovoriti.
Parliament explained that the “Civis” electronic mailbox was no longer set up to receive messages from members of the public and had been replaced by an internet form created for this purpose.
Parlament je pojasnil, da sporoÏil javnosti ne sprejemajo veÏ v elektronskem poštnem nabiralniku „Civis“, saj so ga nadomestili s spletnim obrazcem.
According to Parliament, persons writing to the old e-mail address received an automatic message informing them that they should use the new form.
Trdil je še, da vsi tisti, ki pošljejo e-pošto na stari naslov, prejmejo samodejno obvestilo, naj uporab`o novi obrazec.
It stated that if the complainant had used the form, he would have received a timely reply.
Zagotovil je, da bi pritožnik, Ïe bi uporabil obrazec, pravoÏasno prejel odgovor.
The complainant stressed that he had not received a standard reply to his e-mails.
Pritožnik je poudaril, da samodejnega odgovora na e-poštni sporoÏili ni prejel.
The Ombudsman’s services sent test messages to the “Civis” mailbox but did not receive the standard reply to which Parliament had referred.
Službe Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic so nato poslale preskusno sporoÏilo v e-poštni nabiralnik „Civis“ in resniÏno niso prejele samodejnega odgovora, ki ga je omenjal Parlament.
The Ombudsman asked Parliament for further information.
Varuh je Parlament pozval, naj mu posreduje dodatne informac` e.
In reply, Parliament explained that, at the time when the complainant had sent his e-mails, its electronic mail system had had serious problems due to an avalanche of spam messages.
Parlament je pojasnil, da so imeli takrat, ko je pritožnik poslal svoji sporoÏili, hude težave s sistemom elektronske pošte zaradi poplave neželene e-pošte.
According to Parliament, the arrival of more than 300 000 e-mails in the “Civis” mailbox had had the eT ect of paralysing the programmed instructions in the e-mail management programme, which activated the automatic “reply” function. Parliament
V e-poštni predal „Civis“ je namreÏ prispelo veÏ kot 300 000 sporoÏil, ki so povsem ohromila program za upravljanje e-pošte, ki je pošiljal samodejne odgovore. Parlament je dodal, da so težave odpravili, ko so uvedli nov e-poštni program, in da samodejno pošiljanje odgovorov zdaj deluje brezhibno.
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.
Ocenil je, da je to obdobje odloÏno daljše, kot bi bilo razumno za odgovor na takšne prošnje. Strinjal pa se je, da tehniÏne težave, kakršne je imel Parlament, lahko po v z r o Ï ` o zamude, za katere zadevna instituc` a ali organ ne moreta biti odgovorna.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY added that this situation had been resolved once a new e-mail programme had become operational and that the systematic sending of replies was now working perfectly.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS ON COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY
DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV O SKUPNI ZUNANJI IN VARNOSTNI POLITIKI
Summary of decision on complaint 1875/2005/GG against the Council of the European Union
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1875/2005/GG zoper Svet Evropske un`e e
The complainant asked the Council for access to all documents related to the negotiation and signature of an agreement between the EU Member States concerning the status of military and civilian staT carrying out conflict prevention and crisis management tasks in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.
Pritožnik je Svet zaprosil za dostop do vseh dokumentov o pogajanjih in podpisu sporazuma med državami Ïlanicami EU o statusu vojaških in civilnih uslužbencev, ki v okviru skupne zunanje in varnostne politike Evropske un`e opravljajo naloge pri prepreÏevanju sporov in obvladovanju kriz.
The complainant also asked for a complete list of the sensitive documents to which the Council might decide to refuse access.
Zaprosil je tudi za popoln seznam dokumentov z obÏutljivo vsebino, do katerih Svet morda dostopa ne bo dovolil.
The Council granted partial access to four preparatory documents.
Svet mu je dovolil delni dostop do štirih pripravljalnih dokumentov.
In his confirmatory application, the complainant submimed that, in view of the Agreement’s scope, the fact that the draWing process had taken over two years and the numbering of the four preparatory documents to which the Council had granted partial access, it was to be presumed that the Council held more than just those four documents.
V potrdilni prošnji je pritožnik predvideval, da ima Svet gotovo še druge dokumente, ne le omenjenih štirih, glede na obseg sporazuma, dejstvo, da je priprava slednjega trajala veÏ kot dve leti, in oštevilÏenje teh štirih pripravljalnih dokumentov.
The Council replied that no further relevant documents had been identified.
Svet je odvrnil, da ni našel nobenih drugih ustreznih dokumentov.
The gap in the numbering was due to the fact that the interim documents had been declared void and annulled during production.
Do vrzeli pri oštevilÏevanju pa je prišlo zato, ker so bili vmesni dokumenti med pripravo razglašeni za niÏne in razveljavljeni.
The complainant argued that the Council’s position that there were only four relevant documents was manifestly unreasonable.
Pritožnik je menil, da je stališÏe Sveta, da obstajajo samo štirje ustrezni dokumenti, oÏitno neutemeljeno.
He pointed out that, following a separate request submimed under national freedom of information legislation, he had been granted access to a document that the Council had not mentioned.
Opozoril je, da je na podlagi loÏene zahteve, vložene v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo o svobodi obvešÏanja, dobil dostop do dokumenta, ki ga Svet ni navedel.
The Council stated that, following intensive research, it could now confirm that indeed ten revisions of the document in question had been produced.
Svet je odvrnil, da lahko na podlagi podrobne raziskave potrdi, da je bilo res narejenih deset reviz` zadevnega dokumenta, toda manjkajoÏe razliÏice niso bile vnesene v njegov elektronski register, temveÏ so ostale na oddelku, odgovornem za zadevo.
The Council explained that the missing versions had not been loaded onto its electronic register but had been kept in the department in charge of the mamer.
Ker ti dokumenti niso bili vneseni v elektronski register in potrjeni, jih je obravnaval kot niÏne.
In the absence of evidence that the documents had been electronically recorded and validated, they had been considered void.
Svet se je opraviÏil za to pisarniško napako in poudaril, da je medtem spremenil notranja pravila za registrac`o dokumentov, tako da se bodo odslej dokumenti, podobni zadevnim, v register vnesli samodejno.
The Council apologised for this clerical error.
Varuh ni razumel, zakaj manjkajoÏih dokumentov niso poiskali takoj na zaÏetku ali vsaj takrat, ko so prejeli potrdilno prošnjo pritožnika.
It stressed, however, that its internal rules for the registration of documents had changed in the meantime so that documents such as the ones in question would now be registered automatically.
Menil je, da je izjava Sveta, da so bile revidirane razliÏice razglašene za niÏne in razveljavljene med pripravo, zavajajoÏa, saj ustvarja napaÏen vtis, da dokumenti sploh niso bili distribuirani. Z njihovih naslovnic pa je mogoÏe razbrati, da so bili namenjeni distribuc`i. i.
The Ombudsman failed to understand why the missing documents were not identified from the start or at least following the complainant’s confirmatory application.
Varuh je ugotovil, da je Svet to pojasnilo dal šele v odgovoru na pritožbo, zato je pripomnil, da bi bilo v prihodnje koristno, Ïe bi takšne informac` e pritožnikom posredoval Ïim prej.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council’s statement that the revised versions had been declared void and annulled during production was misleading, since it created the incorrect impression that the documents had never
Pritožnik je med drugim trdil, da je Komis` a z nepotrebno zamudo sprejela sklep o pritožbi zoper španske oblasti zaradi kršitev pri gradnji centra za obdelavo odpadkov v San Romanu de la Vega.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY been distributed.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
However, the cover sheets of the documents made it clear that these documents were meant to be distributed.
Trdil je tudi, da Komis` a ni odgovorila na njegovo potrdilno prošnjo za dostop do sklepa o zaÏetku postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Špan`i in do uradnega opomina, ki ga je poslala španskim oblastem.
The Ombudsman considered that this issue was more serious than a “clerical error”.
Komis` a se je opraviÏila, ker ni odgovorila na pritožnikovo potrdilno prošnjo, in pojasnila, da je bil razlog za to administrativna napaka.
However, he understood the Council’s reference to its new internal rules as meaning that problems of the sort identified in the present case would no longer occur.
Kljub temu se je zagovarjala, da je bila upraviÏena zavrniti dostop do dokumentov, da bi zavarovala namen inšpekc`, preiskav in reviz`(Ïlen 4(2), tretja alineja, Uredba št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e).16 Kot je pojasnila, bi bilo razkritje uradnega opomina bolj škodljivo za javni interes, saj ga je nameraval pritožnik uporabiti v postopkih pred nacionalnimi sodišÏi.
He therefore made a critical remark concerning this issue.
Varuh tega argumenta ni sprejel.
Concerning the list of sensitive documents which the complainant had asked for, the Council stated that no such documents existed.
Poudaril je, da so postopki pred nacionalnimi sodišÏi pomembno sredstvo, s katerim lahko posamezniki za š Ï it ` o pravice, ki jim jih zagotavlja zakonodaja Skupnosti.
The Ombudsman noted that the Council had advanced this point for the first time only in its opinion on the present complaint.
V povezavi s tem je navedel, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti v primeru prostega pretoka blaga vsem strankam izrecno omogoÏil, da pridob`o kop` o obvestila Komis` e državi Ïlanici o oviri za prost pretok blaga, eden od namenov te doloÏbe pa je bil olajšati ukrepanje posameznikov pred nacionalnimi sodišÏi.
He therefore made a further remark, stating that it would be useful if, in future cases, the Council could provide such information to applicants as soon as possible.
Vseeno pa je ocenil, da je Komis` a na podlagi sodne prakse res lahko menila, da je zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov utemeljena, zato pri tem vidiku zadeve ni ugotovil kršitev.
The European Commission
Kar zadeva dolžino postopka, je varuh ugotovil, da je preiskava Komis` e trajala skoraj tri leta.
LENGTH OF INFRINGEMENT PROCEDURE AND ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
Komis` a ga je zatem obvestila, da bo skušala predložiti podrobnejše pojasnilo, Ïe bo v prihodnje prišlo do podobnega primera.
Summary of decision on complaint 2229/2003/MHZ against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2411/2003/MHZ zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant alleged, among other things, that the Commission had unnecessarily delayed its decision on an infringement complaint against the Spanish authorities concerning the construction of a centre for processing waste products in San Roman de la Vega.
Pritožnica, nevladna organizac` a, registrirana v Združenem kraljestvu, je med drugim trdila, da je postopek za pridobitev denarne podpore v okvirnem programu Komis` e za polic`sko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah (AGIS) preveÏ zapleten in nerazumljiv.
The Commission apologised for the lack of answer to the complainant’s confirmatory application and explained that it was due to an administrative error.
Navedla je, da ji je Komis` a naložila drage in zamudne dejavnosti, da bi zadostila uradnemu merilu dopustnosti, Ïeprav je bilo že od zaÏetka jasno, da pritožnica ne bo mogla zadostiti merilu upraviÏenosti, namreÏ da morajo pri njenem projektu sodelovati partnerske organizac` e. Zahtevala je, da ji Komis` a povrne izgubo, ki jo je imela, ker je skušala izpolniti merilo dopustnosti.
According to the Commission, the disclosure of the lemer of formal notice seemed even more detrimental to the public interest given that the complainant intended to use it in proceedings before national courts. The Ombudsman did not accept this argument.
Komis` a je pojasnila, da velik delež vlog v programu AGIS ni bilo popolnih in ni izpolnjevalo vseh zahtev iz razpisa.
He pointed out that proceedings in national courts are important means by which individuals can protect their rights under Community law.
Priznala je, da je k temu morebiti prispevalo tudi dejstvo, da je isti obrazec za vlogo objavila za dve razliÏni vrsti pomoÏi.
Therefore, the Ombudsman was not persuaded that, in other circumstances, the Commission was entitled to rely on arguments that imply a negative view of judicial proceedings in national courts.
Zaradi tega in zato, ker je projekt pritožnice ustrezal politiÏni prednostni nalogi, namreÏ izboljšanju pomoÏi na podroÏju temeljnih pravic, je bila ponudba v predizbirnem postopku izbrana.
However, he considered that, on the basis of the case-law, the Commission could reasonably take the view that a decision to refuse access to the documents was justified.
Ker vloga pritožnice za pomoÏ za poslovanje ni bila pravoÏasno pripravljena, je Komis` a predlagala, naj pritožnica vlogo spremeni in raje zaprosi za pomoÏ za projekt.
No maladministration was therefore found concerning this aspect of the complaint.
Ker pa pritožnica med drugim ni priložila izjave o partnerstvu, Komis` a njene ponudbe ni izbrala.
As regards the length of the procedure, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission’s investigation had taken just under three years.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je obžaloval, da je postopek oddaje vlog v programu AGIS povzroÏil zaplete, vendar je priznal, da se je Komis` a teh težav zavedla in jih skušala odpraviti.
Since the Commission’s opinion only referred to general factors that may cause delays, such as a heavy workload, the Ombudsman considered that it had failed to provide an adequate explanation for the length of the investigation. A critical remark was therefore made.
Menil je, da je Komis` a posredovala utemeljeno pojasnilo, zakaj je pritožnici svetovala, naj zaprosi za pomoÏ za projekt, ne za pomoÏ za poslovanje.
It claimed that the Commission should compensate it for the losses it incurred in trying to meet the formal admissibility criteria.
Kljub temu je opozoril, da naÏelo dobrega upravljanja zahteva, da uradnik, kadar je to potrebno, javnost obvesti, kako je treba reševati zadevo, ki sodi na njegovo podroÏje, in kako je treba v zvezi z njo ravnati.
It acknowledged that the use of a single application form for two d iT erent types of grants may have contributed to these shortcomings.
Menil je, da bi se morala Komis` a v posebnih okolišÏinah tega primera prepriÏati, ali je nasvet, ki ga je dala pritožnici, ustrezen.
The Commission’s failure to draw the complainant’s amention to a fundamental condition of eligibility, namely the requirement to have partner organisations, was therefore an instance of maladministration.
Ker pritožnice ni opozorila na temeljno merilo upraviÏenosti, namreÏ zahtevo za partnerske organizac`e, je šlo v tem primeru za nepravilnost.
As regards the complainant’s claim for compensation, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had neither quantified its claim nor submimed any evidence of its losses.
O zahtevi pritožnice za odškodnino je varuh ugotovil, da pritožnica ni navedla natanÏnega zneska in prav tako ni predložila dokazov o izgubi, ki naj bi jo imela.
He therefore took the view that if the complainant wished to pursue this claim, it should first address the Commission directly in the light of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration.
Zato je menil, naj se pritožnica, Ïe namerava pri tej zahtevi vztrajati, najprej obrne neposredno na Komis`o, sklicujoÏ se na varuhovo ugotovitev, da je šlo za nepravilnost.
FAILURE TO GIVE INFORMATION REGARDING DATA PROTECTION
NEPOSREDOVANJE INFORMACL O VARSTVU PODATKOV
Summary of decision on complaint 224/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 224/2004/PB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the response of the Commission’s Representation in Copenhagen to the complainant’s request for information about the processing of data relating to him.
Pritožba se je nanašala na odgovor predstavništva Komis` e v Københavnu na zahtevo pritožnika za informac` e o obdelavi podatkov, povezanih z njim.
On 10 June 2003, the Representation had telephoned the complainant in relation to a request for public access to documents.
10. jun` a 2003 je predstavništvo pritožniku telefoniralo v zvezi z zahtevo za dostop javnosti do dokumentov.
On that same day, the complainant asked the Representation to inform him about how it had obtained his telephone number.
Še isti dan je pritožnik prosil predstavništvo, da ga obvesti, kje je dobilo njegovo telefonsko številko.
The Representation informed him, on 13 June 2003, that his telephone number had been “indicated by you in your [previous] complaint to the European
Predstavništvo ga je 13. jun` a 2003 obvestilo, da je telefonsko številko sam navedel v pritožbi Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic.
Directive 95/46 on data protection17 and which contains essentially the same requirements as those set out in Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 on data protection18.
To zahtevo je vložil v skladu z dansko zakonodajo, s katero se izvaja direktiva št. 95/46 o varstvu podatkov17 in ki v bistvu vsebuje enake zahteve, kot so doloÏene v Ïlenu 13 Uredbe št. 45/2001 o varstvu podatkov.18
The Ombudsman’s inquiry revealed the following facts.
V preiskavi Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic se je izkazalo naslednje.
The Commission’s Representation had failed to inform the complainant as to whether the telephone number that it had used to contact him on 10 June 2003 had actually been registered or not.
Predstavništvo Komis` e ni obvestilo pritožnika, ali je telefonsko številko, na katero ga je poklicalo 10. jun` a 2003, vpisalo v svojo evidenco. Komis` a je samo v mnenju, ki ga je poslala varuhu, pojasnila, da telefonske številke ni registrirala.
It further emerged that when the Representation informed the complainant on 27 August 2003 about an incorrect telephone number that had been registered under his name and that had subsequently been deleted, it had failed to give any information about when that number had been registered or when it had been deleted.
Izkazalo se je tudi, da je predstavništvo pritožnika 27. avgusta 2003 obvestilo, da je pod njegovo ime vpisalo napaÏno telefonsko številko, ki je bila pozneje izbrisana, vendar ni posredovalo informac` o tem, kdaj je bila ta številka vpisana in izbrisana.
Furthermore, it was clear from the Representation’s lemer to the complainant of 27 August 2003 that its earlier lemer of 1 July 2003, in which it had stated that the “Commission’s Representation in Denmark has not previously registered other personal data under your name”, was incorrect, since this lemer failed to mention the incorrect telephone number that had been registered.
Iz pisma predstavništva Komis` e na Danskem pritožniku z dne 27. avgusta 2003 je bilo mogoÏe še razbrati, da je njegovo prejšnje pismo z dne 1. jul` a 2003, v katerem je zapisalo, da nikoli prej ni zbiralo drugih osebnih podatkov o pritožniku, nepopolno, saj v njem napaÏna telefonska številka, ki jo je shranilo, ni bila omenjena.
On the basis of these findings, the Ombudsman considered that the Representation had failed to give correct and easily understandable information in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001.
Na podlagi teh ugotovitev je varuh ocenil, da predstavništvo ni posredovalo pravilnih in razumljivih informac` v skladu s Ïlenom 13 Uredbe št. 45/2001, kar je nepravilnost, zato je napisal kritiÏno oceno.
The Ombudsman informed the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of the decision, which also included some general comments on the Ombudsman’s intentions as regards the provision of information to, and consultation with, the EDPS in handling complaints relating to data protection.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je evropskega varuha osebnih podatkov obvestil o svoji odloÏbi, ki je vsebovala tudi nekaj splošnih pripomb o izmenjavi informac` in posvetovanju s slednjim pri obravnavanju pritožb v zvezi z varstvom podatkov.
The Commission subsequently expressed its regret that Article 13 of Regulation 45/2001 had been breached in this case.
Komis` a je pozneje izrazila obžalovanje, da je bil v tem primeru kršen Ïlen 13 Uredbe št. 45/2001.
It stated that the Commission’s Representation in Denmark would be reminded that the data protection rules must always be respected.
Izjavila je še, da bo svoje predstavništvo na Danskem opozorila, da je treba pravila o varstvu podatkov vedno spoštovati.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.
Direktiva št. 95/46/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 24. oktobra 1995 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL 1995, L 281, str. 31.
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 instituc`ah in programih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL 2001, L 8, str. 1.
The Ombudsman found that there had been delays concerning two cost statements.
V pritožbi je navedlo, da je bila za precejšnje zaostanke pri plaÏilu, potem ko je posredovalo poroÏilo o stroških, veÏinoma kriva Komis` a, ne posredniki, ki so sodelovali pri projektu. Pritožilo se je tudi, da mu Komis` a ni izplaÏala varšÏine, ki jo je hranila do konÏne ocene projekta in ki je po njegovih navedbah znašala skoraj 13 000 EUR, zaradi Ïesar je zašlo v hude fi na n Ï ne težave. Pritožnik je zahteval, da mu Komis` a vrne varšÏino in da plaÏa zamudne obresti za zapoznelo plaÏilo.