natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that Article 4 (2) of Regulation 1049/2001 provides that the institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of “the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits”, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
2.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da člen 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001 določa, da institucij a zavrne dostop do dokumenta, če bi objava ogrozila varstvo “namena inšpekcij , preiskav in revizij”, razen če obstaja prevladujoč javni interes za razkritje.
In a judgement concerning Commission Decision 94/90 (which Regulation 1049/2001 replaced) the
V sodbi v zvezi s Sklepom Komisij e 94/90 (ki ga je zamenjala Uredba 1049/2001) je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da ohranitev možnosti mirne rešitve spora med Komisij o in državo članico lahko upraviči zavrnitev dostopa do formalnih opominov, poslanih v okviru postopka po členu 22624.
Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, 2001 OJ L 145/43.
Uredba 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, 2001 UL L 145/43.
Case T-191/99, Petrie and Others v. Commission, [2001] ECR II-3677, paragraph 68.
Primer T-191/99, Petrie in drugi v. Komisij a, [2001] ECR II-3677, odstavek 68.
Ibid. paragraph 70.
Prav tam, odstavek 70.
Decisions following an inquiry
Cilj raziskave po členu 226 Komisij e
3.3 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the Court of Justice, the purpose of that prelitigation procedure under Article 226 EC is to enable the Member State to comply of its own accord with the requirements of the Treaty or, if appropriate, to justify its position.26 The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission is entitled to focus its Article 226 investigation on whether there is an infringement of Community law following the entry into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
3.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da Sodišče meni, da je namen predpravdnega postopka po členu 226 ES državi članici omogočiti, da sama začne upoštevati zahteve Pogodbe ali, če je to potrebno, upraviči svoje mnenje.26 Zato meni, da je Komisij a upravičena, da osredotoči svojo preiskavo po členu 226 na vprašanje, ali se zakonodaja Skupnosti krši tudi po sprejetju Zakona o finančnih storitvah in trgih 2000.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Zato ne najde nepravilnosti glede tega dela pritožbe.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ugotavlja, da Komisij a ni ravnala nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
ALLEGED INDIRECT AGE DISCRIMINATION IN OPEN COMPETITION
ZATRJEVANJE POSREDNE STAROSTNE DISKRIMINACIJ E V JAVNEM IZBIRNEM POSTOPKU
Decision on complaint 1536/2002/OV (Confidential) against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1536/2002/OV (zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant wanted to participate in open competition COM/A/2/02 organised by the Commission (Agriculture, Fisheries and Environment DG’s) for the recruitment of assistant administrators (A8).
Pritožnik je želel sodelovati v javnem izbirnem postopku COM/A/2/02, ki ga je organizirala Komisij a (generalni direktorati za kmetijstvo, ribištvo in okolje) za zaposlitev pomožnih uradnikov (A8).
The competition notice provided that candidates needed to have obtained the required university degree a er September 1997.
Razpis izbirnega postopka je določal, da mora imeti kandidat ustrezno univerzitetno diplomo, pridobljeno po septembru 1997.
The complainant observed that this constitutes age discrimination, as he obtained his diploma in 1994 and could thus not participate in the competition.
Po mnenju pritožnika gre pri tem za starostno diskriminacijo, saj je sam diplomiral leta 1994 in se izbirnega postopka zato ni mogel udeležiti.
In its opinion, the Commission indicated that open competition COM/A/2/02, published in the Official Journal of 25 July 2002, was organised for the recruitment of A8 assistant administrators. The deadline for submi ing applications was 27 September 2002.
28. avgusta 2002 je v pritožbi Varuhu z navedel, da pomeni starostno diskriminacij o zahteva v razpisu za univerzitetno diplomo, ki pogojuje sodelovanje v izbirnem postopku z diplomo, pridobljeno po septembru 1997.
Case C-191/95, Commission v. Germany [1998] ECR I-5449, paragraph 44.
Primer C-191-95, Komisij a v. Nemčija [1998] ECR I-5449, odstavek 44.
Decisions following an inquiry has to be obtained just a er the first diploma, but can be part of the complementary education in the framework of the professional career of the candidate.
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju navedla, da je bil splošni izbirni postopek COM/A/2/02, objavljen v Uradnem listu 25. julij a 2002, organiziran za zaposlitev pomožnih uradnikov kategorij e A8.
The Commission also wanted to recall that the competition in question was aimed at recruiting A 8 assistant administrators, which is the basic career in grade A. The requirement of a recently obtained diploma is a condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled, as the Ombudsman indicated in his conclusions in point 1.4 of his decision on joined complaints 428/98/JMA and 464/98/JMA.
Komisij a je opozorila na dejstvo, da je bil sporni izbirni postopek namenjen zaposlitvi pomožnih uradnikov A 8, ki spadajo v osnovni plačilni razred kategorij e A. Zahteva po nedavno pridobljeni diplomi izhaja iz narave delovnega mesta, skladno s točko 1.4 zaključka Sklepa Varuha o združenih pritožbah 428/98/JMA in 464/98/JMA.
For the basic grades the Commission is looking for recent or “fresh” knowledge.
Za temeljni plačilni razred išče Komisij a kandidate z nedavno ali “sveže” pridobljenim znanjem.
As regards the alleged age discrimination resulting from the condition of “freshness” of the diploma, the Commission wanted to underline that not only young people but also less young persons having started studies during their lives fulfil the conditions if they have obtained their diploma during the last fi ve years.
V zvezi z domnevno starostno diskriminacijo, ki je posledica pogoja o “nedavno pridobljeni” diplomi, je Komisij a opozorila, da pogojev ne izpolnjujejo le mladi ljudje, ampak tudi starejši, ki so s študij em začeli kasneje v življenju in so diplomirali v zadnjih petih letih.
Moreover, as the competition was parallel to competition COM/A/1/02, every person who had not obtained his or her initial diploma within the last 5 years or the specialisation diploma within the last 3 years, could be candidate for the competition COM/A/1/02.
Poleg tega je izbirni postopek potekal vzporedno z izbirnim postopkom COM/A/1/02, kjer je lahko sodeloval vsak, ki ni pridobil univerzitetne diplome v zadnjih petih letih ali opravil specializacije v zadnjih treh letih.
The condition of professional experience is linked to the post of an administrator which requires 3 years of professional experience.
Pogoj o delovnih izkušnjah je povezan z delovnim mestom uradnika, ki zahteva 3 leta strokovnih izkušenj.
No age-limit being applied, there is no age discrimination, but only requirements based on the nature of the posts.
Ker pri tem postopku ni starostne omejitve, tudi ni starostne diskriminacije, temveč le zahteve, izhajajoče iz narave delovnega mesta.
1.1 The complainant alleged that the requirement in the competition notice to have obtained the university degree required for admission to the competition a er September 1997 constitutes age discrimination.
1.1 Po trditvah pritožnika gre pri zahtevi objavljenega razpisa po diplomi, pridobljeni po septembru 1997, kot pogoju za sodelovanje v izbirnem postopku za starostno diskriminacijo. o.
1.2 The Commission argued that open competition COM/A/2/02 was organised for the recruitment of A8 assistant administrators. The Commission observed that this “fresh diplomas” clause is a condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled.
1.2 Komisij a je izjavila, da je bil splošni izbirni postopek COM/A/2/02 organiziran za zaposlitev pomožnih uradnikov A8 in da je klavzula o “nedavno pridobljeni diplomi” pogoj, ki ga narekuje narava razpisanega delovnega mesta.
This principle demands that comparable situations not be treated differently unless such differentiation is objectively justified. Thus, candidates in similar situations should not be treated differently, unless there are justifiable grounds27.
V zvezi z domnevno starostno diskriminacij o na podlagi tega pogoja meni, da pogojev ne izpolnjujejo le mladi ljudje, temveč tudi starejši, ki so začeli s študij em kasneje v življenju in so diplomo pridobili v zadnjih petih letih.
1.4 The use by the Commission of an alleged indirect discriminatory clause in the conditions for the admission to competition COM/A/2/02, namely the date in which A8 applicants obtained their academic degree or a specialised degree, should be based on objective reasons.
Nadalje Komisij a ugotavlja, da so se imele osebe, ki niso diplomirale v zadnjih petih letih ali opravile specializacije v zadnjih treh letih, možnost udeležiti vzporednega izbirnega postopka COM/A/1/02, kjer so bile potrebne delovne izkušnje.
1.5 The Commission has justified the application of this clause on the basis of the nature and functions to be carried out by assistant administrators.
1.5 Komisij a je uporabo klavzule obrazložila z naravo in nalogami delovnega mesta pomožnih administratorjev.
Since A8 officials are not deemed to have any relevant professional experience prior to their joining the Commission, the institution has set a date for the completion of their studies or specialised studies.
Ker naj bi uradniki A8 še ne imeli ustreznih delovnih izkušenj, preden se zaposlijo pri Komisij i, je slednja določila datum za zaključek študij a ali specializacije.
The “freshness” of the diploma appears thus as a specific condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled. filled.
“Nedavno pridobljena” diploma je torej poseben pogoj, ki ga narekuje narava razpisanega delovnega mesta.
1.6 It further appears that older candidates who have obtained their diplomas or specialised diplomas recently could also participate in the competition.
1.6 Starejši kandidati, ki so diplomirali ali opravili specializacijo v zadnjih nekaj letih, so lahko sodelovali v izbirnem postopku.
Moreover, candidates who have not obtained their diploma or specialised diploma within respectively the last 5 or 3 years could participate in the parallel competition COM/A/1/02 requiring professional experience.
Poleg tega so se kandidati brez diplome ali specializacije, pridobljene v zadnjih petih oz. treh letih, lahko udeležili vzporednega izbirnega postopka COM/A/1/02, kjer so bile potrebne delovne izkušnje.
The Ombudsman therefore considers that the arguments put forward by the Commission seem reasonable.
Varuh zato meni, da so argumenti Komisij e utemeljeni.
Also, 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.
Poleg tega omejitve, ki jih določa klavzula, ustrezajo svojemu namenu, t.j. omogočiti institucij i lažjo izbiro kandidatov v kategorij i A8.
1.7 By imposing a condition based on the “freshness of the diploma” to A8 candidates, the Ombudsman has concluded that the Commission acted within the limits of its legal authority.
1.7 Varuh glede pogoja o “nedavno pridobljeni” diplomi za kandidate A8 ugotavlja, da je Komisij a ravnala znotraj svojih zakonskih pooblastil in, da v tej zadevi ni nepravilnosti.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri ravnanju Evropske komisij e in s tem primer zaključuje.
COMMISSION’S REFUSAL TO GRANT ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBER STATES
KOMISIJ A ZAVRNILA PROŠNJO ZA DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV DRŽAV ČLANIC
Decision on complaint 1753/2002/GG (Confidential) against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1753/2002/GG (zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisij o
This is a short summary of the decision which could not be published in full due to its length.
Sledi kratek povzetek sklepa, ki ga zaradi njegove dolžine ni bilo mogoče objaviti v celoti.
The complete text of the decision in German and English can be found on the Ombudsman’s website at: h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/021753.htm
Celotno besedilo sklepa v angleškem in nemškem jeziku se nahaja na spletni strani Varuha: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/021753.htm.
In March 2002, the complainant, an Irish citizen, applied to the Commission for access to certain documents in accordance with Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 regarding public access to European
Marca 2002 je pritožnik, državljan Republike Irske, od Komisij e zahteval dostop do določenih dokumentov v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije28 e28
The documents were supplied, with the exception of two le ers sent by Ireland to the Commission under Article 27 (1) of the Sixth Directive and of a notification by Ireland under Article 27 (5) of the said directive.
Vsi dokumenti so bili dani na razpolago pritožniku, razen dveh pisem, ki jih je Irska poslala Komisij i v skladu členom 27(1) Šeste direktive, in uradnega obvestila Irske v skladu s členom 27(5) iste direktive.
The Commission informed the complainant that access could not be granted since the Irish tax authorities had requested that the documents should not be disclosed.
Komisij a je pritožnika obvestila o zavrnitvi dostopa zaradi zahteve irskih davčnih oblasti, naj se ti dokumenti ne razkrijejo. ejo.
The complainant alleged that the Commission was wrong to refuse access to these documents since their disclosure would not harm any of the interests set out in Regulation 1049/2001 and that the Commission failed to comply with the procedural rules laid down in Decision 2001/93729
Pritožnik trdi, da mu Komisij a ne bi smela zavrniti dostopa do teh dokumentov, saj njihovo razkritje ne bi škodovalo nobenemu od interesov iz Uredbe 1049/2001 in da ni upoštevala postopkovnih
Decision 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 5 December 2001 adopting detailed rules for the application of Regulation 1049/2001 by the Commission OJ 2001 no. L 345, page 94.
Komisij a bi morala po njegovem mnenju svojo odločitev še pravil, določenih v Sklepu 2001/937enkrat preučiti.
Decisions following an inquiry access to the document as such but to restrict access to it under the Community rules.
Ne le, da je imela pravico do posvetovanja z nacionalnimi oblastmi države izvora, temveč je bila k temu zavezana.
This restriction was designed to take into account the status of the document under national law and policy and thus avoid discrepancies between the Community and the various national systems of transparency.
Na ta način se upošteva status dokumentov v nacionalnem pravu in politiki ter izogne nesoglasjem med Skupnostjo in različnimi nacionalnimi sistemi preglednosti.
In his decision on the case, the Ombudsman first considered that the complainant had not succeeded in showing that the Commission’s decision to refuse access was wrong and found no maladministration in so far as this aspect of the case was concerned.
V svojem sklepu o tem primeru je Varuh najprej ugotovil, da pritožniku ni uspelo dokazati napačnosti odločitve Komisij e glede zavrnitve dostopa, zato v tem pogledu ni našel nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman also considered that the Commission, whilst failing to comply with its own procedural rules laid down in Decision 2001/937, acted correctly as regards the substance of the case.
Varuh tudi meni, da je Komisij a, glede na vsebino zadeve, ravnala pravilno kljub neupoštevanju lastnih postopkovnih pravil iz Uredbe 2001/937.
As a ma er of fact, it could well be argued that if the Commission had complied with its own procedural rules, it would have been guilty of maladministration.
Pravzaprav bi Komisij a lahko, če bi postopala po lastnih postopkovnih pravilih, celo storila nepravilnost.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that it would not be appropriate to find, in the present case, that the Commission’s failure to comply with its own procedural rules constituted maladministration.
Varuh zato ugotavlja, da v tem primeru Komisij i zaradi neupoštevanja postopkovnih pravil ne bi bilo primerno očitati nepravilnosti.
In order to help prevent similar situations arising in the future, the Ombudsman made the following further remark:
Da bi preprečil podobne primere v prihodnosti, je podal naslednjo oceno:
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries, it appears that the procedural rules adopted by the Commission in its Decision 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 5 December 2001 amending its rules of procedure, and in particular Article 5 (4) of these rules, are not dra ed with the precision necessary to reflect the substantive provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Na podlagi preiskave Varuha je bilo ugotovljeno, da postopkovna pravila, sprejeta s Sklepom Komisij e 2001/937/ES, ESPJ, Euratom z dne 5. decembra 2001, ki spreminjajo Poslovnik Komisij e in zlasti njegov člen 5(4), niso dovolj podrobna, da bi ustrezala temeljnim določbam Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
The Ombudsman would therefore consider it useful if the Commission could review these provisions.
Po mnenju Varuha bi bilo koristno, da Komisij a te določbe pregleda.
The corresponding rules adopted by the Council in its Decision of 29 November 2001 amending the Council’s Rules of Procedure30 (and in particular Article 2 (1) of Annex III added to the Council’s Rules of Procedure by this Decision) may serve as useful guidance in this context.
Odgovarjajoča pravila, ki jih je sprejel Svet s Sklepom dne 29. novembra 2001 in spreminjajo Poslovnik Sveta30 (zlasti člen 2(1) priloge III, dodane k Poslovniku Sveta s tem sklepom), so pri tem lahko Komisij i v pomoč.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S HANDLING OF AN APPLICATION FOR A POST OF SECONDED NATIONAL EXPERT
OBRAVNAVANJE PRIJAVE ZA DELOVNO MESTO ODPOSLANEGA NACIONALNEGA STROKOVNJAKA S STRANI EVROPSKE KOMISIJ E
Decision on complaint 172/2003/IP against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 172/2003/IP zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complaint concerns the Commission’s handling of an application for a post of Seconded National Expert.
Predmet pritožbe je obravnavanje prijave za delovno mesto odposlanega nacionalnega strokovnjaka s strani Komisije. e.
In September 2001, the Directorate General Internal Market (hereina er DG MARKT) of the European Commission circulated to the Commission’s Permanent Representations in the Member States four notices of vacancy for posts of Seconded National Experts (hereina er SNE) in four separate Units.
Septembra 2001 je generalni direktorat Evropske komisij e za notranji trg (v nadaljevanju GD MARKT) stalnim predstavnikom Komisij e v državah članicah poslal štiri obvestila o prostih delovnih mestih odposlanega nacionalnega strokovnjaka (v nadaljevanju ONS) v štirih ločenih enotah.
The complainant applied for the post available in Unit D/1, “Free Movement of Goods”.
Pritožnik se je prijavil za delovno mesto v enoti D/1, “Prosti pretok blaga”.
By le er of 16 January 2002, the complainant was informed that his application had not been successful.
Pritožnik je bil v pismu z dne 16. januarja 2002 obveščen, da je bila njegova prijava zavrnjena.
The le er stated that “we have circulated your CV within the DG but I regret to inform you that your application has not been successful.
V pismu je bilo zapisano: “Vaš življenjepis smo razposlali po GD, toda žal je bila vaša prijava neuspešna.
However, your details will be kept on fi le for one year”.
Vaše podatke bomo vseeno obdržali za eno leto.”
On 11 February 2002, the complainant wrote to the Commission and asked the institution: (i) to give him reasons for its decision not to select his application; (ii) to communicate the name of the selected candidate and (iii) to give him access to a copy of any related document.
Pritožnik je 11. februarja 2002 pisal Komisij i in jo prosil naj: (i) navede razloge za zavrnitev njegove prijave, (ii) sporoči ime izbranega kandidata in (iii) mu omogoči dostop do kopijvseh s tem povezanih dokumentov.
In its reply of 13 March 2002, the Commission stated that the le er sent on 16 January 2002 had been a holding le er sent to inform applicants that their data would be kept for a year.
Sklep 2001/937/ES, ESPJ, Euratom z dne 5. decembra 2001 o podrobnih pravilih za izvajanje Uredbe 1049/2001 s strani Komisij e UL 2001 št. L 345, stran 94.
Furthermore, the Commission stated that the publication of a post is not binding for the institution that can decide not to fi ll the post.
Komisij a je še dodala, da objava delovnega mesta zanjo ni zavezujoča in se lahko odloči, da mesta ne zasede.
On 2 April 2002, the complainant wrote a further le er to the Commission.
Pritožnik je 2. aprila 2002 na Komisij o naslovil novo pismo.
He pointed out that the le er of 16 January 2002 clearly stated that his application had not been successful.
Poudaril je, da v pismu z dne 16. januarja 2002 jasno piše, da njegova prijava ni bila uspešna, zaradi česar je sklepal, da je bil postopek izbire izveden.
In the complainant’s view, this meant that a selection procedure had been carried out.
Z njegovega stališča bi morala Komisij a kandidate obvestiti o kakršni koli odločitvi v okviru omenjenega postopka. Komisij a je v odgovoru z dne 8. maja 2002 ponovila v pismu z dne 13. marca 2002 navedene razloge.
In its le er of 4 September 2002, in reply to a further le er from the complainant of 18 June 2002, the Commission stated that: (i) for the post in Unit D/1 three applications had been received, including the complainant’s; (ii) following a change in DG MARKT’s internal structure and reconsideration of the allocation of human resources, it had been decided not to proceed to the filling of the post of SNE in Unit D/1; (iii) no SNE had been recruited by DG MARKT following the notice of vacancy in question; (iv) since there was no wri en decision about the decision not to fi ll the post, it was not possible to give the complainant access to such a document requested in his le er of 11 February 2002.
V pismu z dne 4. septembra 2002, ki je odgovor na nadaljnje pismo pritožnika z dne 18. junij a 2002, je Komisij a zapisala, da: (i) je za delovno mesto v enoti D/1 prejela tri prijave, vključno s pritožnikovo; (ii) se je po spremembi notranje strukture GD za notranji trg in prerazporeditvi človeških virov odločila, da ne zasede delovnega mesta ONS v enoti D/1; (iii) GD za notranji trg po obvestilu o omenjenem prostem delovnem mestu ni zaposlil nobenega ONS; (iv) ker ni bilo pisnega sklepa o odločitvi, da se delovno mesto ne zasede, pritožniku ni bilo mogoče dovoliti dostopa do dokumentov, ki jih je zahteval v pismu z dne 11. februarja 2002.
Furthermore, DG MARKT regre ed that the le er sent to applicants in January 2002 had been a standard le er normally sent to inform candidates that their application has been rejected.
GD MARKT se je opravičil, ker je bilo pismo, poslano pritožniku januarja 2002, standardno pismo za obveščanje kandidatov o zavrnitvi prijave.
In the present case, it would have been preferable to explain that the Commission had decided not to fi ll the post and give reasons therefore.
V tem primeru bi bilo bolje, če bi Komisij a pojasnila, da delovnega mesta ni zasedla in navedla razloge za svojo odločitev.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the European Commission had failed to follow principles of good administration when sending him the le er of 16 January 2002, because the information therein was incorrect.
V pritožbi Varuhu je pritožnik navedel, da Evropska komisij a ni upoštevala načel dobrega upravljanja, saj mu je 16. januarja 2002 poslala pismo z napačnimi informacijami.