natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following an email from the complainant of 19 November 2002 requesting evidence of the errors, Parliament replied by return mail that it would send photocopies of those pages of the bids with the errors clearly indicated.
Po pritožnikovi e-pošti 19. novembra 2002, kjer je zahteval dokaze napak, je Parlament odgovoril, da bo poslal fotokopije tistih strani ponudb, kjer so napake jasno razvidne.
This proof was sent by registered le er of 13 December 2002 a er the complainant’s request.
Ta dokaz je bil poslan s priporočeno pošto po pritožnikovi zahtevi 13. decembra 2002.
The complainant’s le er to the Ombudsman is dated 19 November 2002, i.e. the same date as the request for evidence of the errors in the bids.
Pritožnikovo pismo Evropskemu varuhu je z dne 19. novembra 2002, to je na isti dan, kot zahteva za dokaz napak v ponudbah.
As regards the second allegation, Parliament stated that, further to the complainant contesting the exclusion from the calls for tenders ref. CRE-0205-ES-EP and CRE-0208-IT-EP on the basis of inadequate turnover, both off ers were reexamined.
Kar zadeva drugo trditev, je Parlament pojasnil, da se je po pritožnikovem ugovoru zaradi izključitve iz javnih razpisov CRE-0205-ES-EP in CRE-0208-IT-EP na podlagi nezadostnega prometa obe ponudbi ponovno preučilo.
By le er of 30 September 2002, Parliament acknowledged that the off er for Italian had been excluded erroneously at the selection stage since proof was indeed given of adequate turnover.
S pismom 30. septembra 2002 je Parlament priznal, da so ponudbo za italijanščino na stopnji izbora pomotoma izključili, saj so bili dokazani zadostni prihodki.
In the same le er, Parliament informed the complainant of the outcome of the reevaluation of the off er, namely the non-selection due to the poor linguistic quality of the bid, i.e. a total of 15 spelling and grammar errors.
V istem pismu je Parlament obvestil pritožnika o rezultatu ponovnega ovrednotenja ponudbe, namreč o neizboru na podlagi nizke jezikovne kakovosti ponudbe, t.j. o skupaj 15 pravopisnih in slovničnih napakah.
The complainant’s claim that there were no details of the nature of the errors is therefore unfounded.
Pritožnikova trditev, da ni bilo podrobnosti o naravi napak, je zato neutemeljena.
Parliament subsequently offered to provide photocopies of the Italian bid with the errors indicated.
Parlament je naknadno ponudil fotokopije ponudbe za italijanščino z navedenimi napakami.
The complainant’s bid for Italian was excluded at the selection stage in accordance with the selection criteria (namely Article 2.2 of the General Specifications). cations).
Pritožnikova ponudba za italijanščino je bila izključena na stopnji izbora v skladu z merili izbora (namreč člen 2.2 Splošnih specifi kacij ).
As regards the third allegation, Parliament stated that it had informed the complainant by registered le er of 22 October 2002 that its bid for the call for tenders ref.
Kar zadeva tretjo trditev, je Parlament pojasnil, da je 22. oktobra 2002 s priporočenim pismom pritožnika obvestil, da je bila njegova ponudba na javni razpis CRE-0203-EL-EP zavrnjena na
CRE-0203-EL-EP had been rejected at the award stage because it did not represent a sufficiently high quality/price ratio.
Sklepi preiskav stopnji dodelitve, zaradi nezadovoljivega razmerja med kakovostjo in ceno.
All bidders whose off ers were rejected received such a le er informing them of the reasons for the rejection.
Vsi ponudniki, katerih ponudbe so bile zavrnjene, so prejeli pismo, ki jih je obveščalo o razlogih zavrnitve.
In addition, in accordance with the legal requirements, Parliament published a contract award notice in the Official Journal J 2002/S 178-140831 and on its website.
Poleg tega je Parlament skladno s pravnimi zahtevami objavil obvestilo o oddaji naročila v Uradnem listu J 2002/S 178-140831 in na svoji spletni strani.
It is clear from this notice that one main contract and two reserve contracts were awarded.
Iz tega obvestila je jasno razvidno, da je bilo oddano eno glavno naročilo in dve rezervni.
The awarding authority decided to off er only 2 reserve contracts rather than the maximum possible of 4 announced in the tender specifications.
Naročnik se je odločil ponuditi raje samo 2 rezervni naročili in ne največ možnih štirih, kot je bilo objavljeno v razpisnih pogojih.
This decision is fully in accordance with the applicable legislation, which imposes no obligation to award contracts a er a tender procedure.
Odločitev je popolnoma v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo, ki ne nalaga obveznosti oddaje naročila po postopku zbiranja ponudb.
Parliament decided, on the basis of an opinion from its Legal Service, not to award the contract to the first contractor proposed.
Parlament se je na podlagi mnenja svoje pravne službe odločil, da ne dodeli naročila prvemu predlaganemu izvajalcu.
The complainant made no observations on Parliament’s opinion.
Pritožnik ni podal pripomb na mnenje Parlamenta.
The alleged failure of explanation for the rejection of the bids for Swedish and French
Domnevna neobrazložitev zavrnitve ponudb za švedščino in francoščino
1.1 The complainant is a Brussels based company, which sent 11 bids further to various calls for tenders for translation services launched by the European Parliament.
1.1 Pritožnik je podjetje s sedežem v Bruslju, ki je na različne javne razpise za prevajalske storitve, ki jih je objavil Evropski parlament, poslal 11 ponudb.
1.2 In its opinion, Parliament stated that, further to an email from the complainant requesting evidence of the errors, it replied that it would send photocopies of those pages of the bids with
Pritožnik trdi, da Parlament ni podal podrobnih pojasnil o jezikovnih napakah, na podlagi katerih so bile zavrnjene pritožnikove ponudbe za švedščino in francoščino.
This aspect of the complaint therefore appears to have been se led by Parliament.
Ta vidik pritožbe je tako rešil Parlament.
The alleged failure of explanation for the rejection of the bid for Italian
Domnevna neobrazložitev zavrnitve ponudbe za italijanščino anščino
2.1 The complainant alleges that Parliament gave a new reason for the rejection of the bid for Italian, but gave no details concerning the linguistic mistakes that were the reason for this rejection.
2.1 Pritožnik trdi, da je Parlament podal nov razlog za zavrnitev ponudbe za italijanščino, vendar ni navedel podrobnosti o jezikovnih napakah, ki so bile razlog za to zavrnitev.
2.2 Parliament explained that, by le er of 30 September 2002, it acknowledged that the off er for Italian had been excluded erroneously at the selection stage since proof was indeed given of adequate turnover.
2.2 S pismom 30. septembra 2002 je Parlament obrazložil, da je bila ponudba za italijanščino na stopnji izbora pomotoma izključena, saj je bil resnično dokazan zadosten promet.
Parliament at the same time informed the complainant of the outcome of the reevaluation of the off er, namely the non-selection due to the poor linguistic quality of the bid, which contained a total of 15 spelling and grammar errors.
Istočasno je Parlament obvestil pritožnika o rezultatu ponovnega ovrednotenja ponudbe, namreč o neizboru na podlagi nizke jezikovne kakovosti ponudbe, ki je skupaj vsebovala 15 pravopisnih in slovničnih napak.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes from the above that Parliament has explained to the complainant why a new reason was given for the non-selection of the complainant: Parliament clarified to the complainant that the bid had initially been excluded erroneously and has also offered to provide concrete information about the errors, which the complainant indeed appears to have received.
2.3 Varuh iz zgoraj navedenega ugotavlja, da je Parlament pritožniku pojasnil, zakaj je podal nov razlog za neizbor pritožnika: Parlament je pritožniku pojasnil, da je bila ponudba prvotno izključena po pomoti in je ponudil posredovanje informacij e o napakah, ki jo je pritožnik seveda prejel.
In her le er of 29 January 2003, the complainant observed that it could agree with certain corrections.
Pritožnik je v pismu 29. januarja 2003 menil, da bi se lahko strinjal z določenimi popravki.
Since Parliament appears to have taken appropriate action to correct the error that it has acknowledged, no further inquiries appear to be necessary with regard to this aspect of the case.
Glede na to, da je Parlament ob popravi priznanih napak ustrezno ukrepal, niso bile potrebne nadaljnje preiskave v zvezi s tem vidikom primera.
The alleged failure of explanation for the rejection of the bid for Greek
Domnevna neobrazložitev zavrnitve ponudbe za grščino
3.1 The complainant alleges that Parliament gave no exact reason for the rejection of the bid for Greek.
3.1 Pritožnik je trdil, da Parlament ni podal natančnega razloga za zavrnitev ponudbe za grščino.
In its le er of 29 January 2003, the complainant observes that it still had no details concerning this rejection.
V svojem pismu 29. januarja 2003 je pritožnik opazil, da znova ni bilo podrobnosti o tej zavrnitvi.
3.2 Parliament observes that it informed the complainant by registered le er of 22 October 2002 that its bid for the call for tenders had been rejected at the award stage because it did not represent a sufficiently high quality/price ratio.
3.2 Parlament meni, da je 22. oktobra 2002 s priporočenim pismom pritožnika obvestil, da je bila njegova ponudba na javni razpis zavrnjena na stopnji dodelitve, ker ni predstavila zadovoljivega razmerja kakovosti/cene. Obvestilo o oddaji je bilo objavljeno v Uradnem listu, kjer je razvidno, da
Furthermore, an award notice was published in the Official Journal, from which it appears that one main contract and two reserve contracts were awarded.
Sklepi preiskav je bilo oddano eno glavno naročilo in dve rezervni.
Parliament also explains that it had decided, on the basis of an opinion from its Legal Service, not to award the contract to the first contractor proposed.
Parlament je tudi pojasnil, da se je na podlagi mnenja svoje pravne službe odločil, da ne dodeli naročila prvemu predlaganemu izvajalcu.
3.3 It appears from the above that Parliament did take steps to inform the complainant of the reason for the rejection of the bid.
3.3 Iz zgoraj navedenega je očitno, da je Parlament obvestil pritožnika o razlogu zavrnitve ponudbe.
Parliament also provided further information in its opinion to the Ombudsman.
Parlament je o svojem stališču Evropskemu varuhu priskrbel tudi nadaljnje informacije.
No instance of maladministration was thus found with regard to this aspect of the case.
V zvezi s tem vidikom primera tako niso bile ugotovljene nepravilnosti.
It appears from Parliament’s comments and the complainant’s observations that Parliament has taken steps to se le part 1 of the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Iz pripomb Parlamenta in mnenja pritožnika je očitno, da je Parlament ukrepal v smeri rešitve 1. dela pritožbe in je zadovoljil pritožnika.
No further inquiries appear to be necessary into part 2 of the complaint.
Nadaljnja preiskava za 2. del pritožbe ni potrebna.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into part 3 of this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by Parliament.
Evropski varuh na podlagi preiskave 3. dela pritožbe ugotavlja, da Parlament ni ravnal nepravilno in s tem primer zaključuje.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
DOSTOP DO TESTOV IZ JAVNEGA IZBIRNEGA POSTOPKA
This complaint was forwarded to the Ombudsman by an MEP.
Pritožbo je Varuhu posredoval poslanec EP.
The complainant failed test 1.A.d) and was excluded from the competition.
Pritožnik ni uspešno opravil testa 1.A.d in je bil izključen iz izbirnega postopka.
He was informed of his exclusion by le er of 17 July 2002 from the Parliament’s recruitment services.
Parlamentarne službe za zaposlitev so ga 17. julij a pisno obvestile o njegovi izključitvi.
On 23 July 2002, he asked the Selection Board to re-examine his test.
23. julij a 2002 je prosil izbirno komisijo, naj ponovno oceni njegov test.
By le er of 21 October 2002, the Selection Board informed the complainant that the Selection Board had carried out a re-examination of test 1.A.d) in its meeting of 11 October and confirmed its original decision not to admit him to the next tests.
Izbirna komisij a je pritožnika 21. oktobra 2002 pisno obvestila, da je na sestanku 11. oktobra opravila ponovno ocenitev testa 1.A.d in potrdila prvotno odločitev, da ga ne sprejme na naslednje testiranje.
On 28 October 2002, the complainant wrote a further le er to the Selection Board, asking for a copy of both the test he had failed and of the correction grid.
28. oktobra 2002 je pritožnik izbirni komisij i napisal še eno pismo, s katerim je zaprosil za kopij o testa, ki ga ni uspešno opravil in pregled popravkov.
On 12 November 2002, the Selection Board replied to the complainant and refused to give him a copy of the requested documents because the request had not been made within the period prescribed for that purpose.
12. novembra 2002 je izbirna komisij a pritožniku v odgovoru zavrnila zahtevo za kopij e želenih dokumentov, saj jih ni zahteval v za to predpisanem času.
In accordance with Parliament’s reply, the complainant should have made his request within 30 days from the notification of the Selection Board’s decision to exclude him from the competition.
V skladu z odgovorom Parlamenta je pritožnik po obvestilu izbirne komisije, da ga izključuje iz izbirnega postopka, za predložitev svoje zahteve imel 30 dni časa.
On 19 November 2002, the complainant wrote a further le er to the Selection Board, in which he contested the above decision.
19. novembra je pritožnik znova pisal izbirni komisij i in spodbijal zgoraj omenjeno odločitev. Pritožnik je poudaril, da je 23. julij a 2002 prosil izbirno komisij o za ponovni pregled testa, ki ga ni uspešno opravil.
A request for access to the documents concerned was therefore not justified at that moment, since it was still possible for the Selection Board to modify its decision.
Glede na to, da je imela izbirna komisij a še vedno možnost spremeniti svojo odločitev, zahteva po dostopu do zadevnih dokumentov ni bila utemeljena.
In the complainant’s view, the period of 30 days to make the request for access to documents started to run from 21 October 2002, when the Selection Board took the final decision to confirm his exclusion from the competition.
Po mnenju pritožnika se je rok 30 dni za vložitev prošnje po dostopu do dokumentov začel 21. oktobra 2002, ko je izbirna komisij a zavzela dokončno odločitev o izključitvi iz izbirnega postopka.
The complainant received no reply to his le er of 19 November 2002.
Pritožnik na svoje pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002 ni dobil odgovora.
In his le er to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Selection Board’s refusal to allow him access to the requested documents was unfair and that the Parliament had failed to reply to his le er of 19 November 2002.
V svojem pismu Evropskemu varuhu je pritožnik navedel, da je zavrnitev izbirne komisij e za dostop do zahtevanih dokumentov krivična in da mu Parlament ni odpisal na pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002.
The complainant claimed that he should have access to test A.1.d), which he had failed, and to the correction grid.
Pritožnik je zahteval dostop do testa A.1.d, ki ga ni uspešno opravil, in do pregleda popravkov.
Decisions following an inquiry
Mnenje Evropskega parlamenta
In his observations, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the Parliament had forwarded to him the requested documents already on 26 May 2003, together with a le er explaining the reasons for the failure to reply to his le er of 19 November 2002.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik obvestil Evropskega varuha, da mu je Parlament zahtevane dokumente skupaj s pismom, ki pojasnjuje razloge za neodgovor na njegovo pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002, posredoval že 26. maja 2003.
He expressed his satisfaction at the outcome of the case and thanked the Ombudsman and his staff for their efforts in dealing with his case.
Izrazil je zadovoljstvo z izidom primera in se Evropskemu varuhu in njegovemu osebju zahvalil za njihova prizadevanja v obravnavi njegovega primera.
The complainant’s allegations and claim
Trditve in zahtevek pritožnika
1.1 In his complaint, the complainant, a candidate in open competition EUR/A/158/2000, alleged that the Selection Board’s refusal to allow him access to his test A.1.d) and to the correction grid was unfair and that the Parliament had failed to reply to his le er of 19 November 2002.
1.1 V svoji pritožbi je pritožnik, kandidat na javnem razpisu EUR/A/158/2000, navedel, da je zavrnitev izbirne komisij e za njegov dostop do testa A.1.d in pregleda popravkov krivična in da mu Parlament ni odpisal na pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002.
1.2 In its opinion, the Parliament regre ed that its services had failed to reply to the complainant’s le er of 19 November 2002.
1.2 V svojem mnenju je Parlament obžaloval, da njegove službe niso odgovorile na pritožnikovo pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002.
It explained that due to unfortunate circumstances related to the move of the competition services, it appeared that the complainant’s le er had been mislaid.
Pojasnil je, da je bilo pismo zaradi nesrečnih okoliščin, ki so bile povezane s selitvijo služb za razpise, založeno.
As regards the complainant’s request to have access to test 1.A.d) and to the correction grid, the Parliament recalled that according to the rules concerning candidates’ access to their marked tests, which had been distributed to all candidates during the wri en tests, candidates had to make the relevant request in writing and within one month from the communication of the final results.
Kar zadeva pritožnikovo prošnjo po dostopu do testa 1.A.d in do pregleda popravkov, je Parlament poudaril, da so glede na pravila o dostopu kandidatov do njihovih ocenjenih testov, ki so jih razdelili vsem kandidatom med pisnimi testi, leti morali ustrezno pisno prošnjo predložiti v roku enega meseca od obvestila o končnih rezultatih.
The complainant was informed of the results of his tests on 17 July 2002 and he required to have access to the documents concerned on 28 October 2002.
Pritožnik je bil o rezultatih testov obveščen 17. julij a 2002, dostop do zadevnih dokumentov pa je zahteval 28. oktobra 2002.
The complainant’s request had therefore not been made in accordance with the relevant rules on the ma er.
Pritožnikova zahteva tako ni bila v skladu z ustreznimi pravili o tej zadevi.
Nevertheless, the Parliament agreed to forward to the Ombudsman the documents requested by the complainant.
Ne glede na to se je Parlament strinjal, da Varuhu posreduje dokumente, ki jih je zahteval pritožnik.
1.3 In his observations, the complainant confirmed that Parliament had forwarded to him the requested documents already on 26 May 2003, together with a le er explaining the reasons of the failure to reply to his le er of 19 November 2002.
1.3 V svojih pripombah je pritožnik potrdil, da mu je Parlament zahtevane dokumente skupaj s pismom, ki pojasnjuje razloge za neodgovor na njegovo pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002, posredoval že 26. maja 2003.
It appears from the Parliament’s opinion and the complainant’s observations that Parliament has taken steps to se le the ma er and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
Iz mnenja Parlamenta in pripomb pritožnika je očitno, da je Parlament ukrepal v smeri rešitve zadeve in je zadovoljil pritožnika.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Varuh s tem primer zaključuje.
LATE PAYMENT OF GRANT FOR AIDS’ RELATED PROJECT
ZAKASNELO PLAČILO PODPORE ZA PROJEKT V ZVEZI Z AIDSOM
Decision on complaint 1960/2002/JMA against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1960/2002/JMA zoper Evropsko komisij o
During 1996 and 1997, the complainant jointly with other contributors, participated in an AIDS’ related project called EUROVITHA, which was coordinated by the Department of Psychology of the University of Tuebingen in Germany.
V letih 1996 in 1997 je pritožnik skupaj z ostalimi sodelavci sodeloval pri projektu v zvezi z aidsom EUROVITHA, ki ga je koordiniral Oddelek za psihologijo Univerze v Tübingenu v Nemčiji. i.
On 7 October 1997, the Commission agreed to finance part of the project (Agreement SOC 97 20113505F02 “Evaluation of Guided Group Programmes for People with HIV/AIDS, Creation of a Network of Therapists in D.E.I.”).
7. oktobra 1997 se je Komisij a strinjala, da bo financirala del projekta (Dogovor SOC 97 20113505F02 “Vrednotenje programov vodenih skupin za ljudi z virusom HIV/aidsom, Oblikovanje mreže terapevtikov v D.E.I.”)
The parties to the contract were the Commission and the Department of Psychology of the University of Tuebingen, whereas COGAM appeared as an associated contractor.
Pogodbeni stranki sta bili Komisij a in Oddelek za psihologijo Univerze v Tübingenu, medtem ko se je COGAM pojavil kot pridruženi izvajalec.
Despite the fact that its contribution to the contract had been concluded in February 1999, COGAM has not received its payment of 8200 €.
Ne glede na dejstvo, da se je njegovo sodelovanje zaključilo februarja 1999, pa COGAM ni prejel plačila v višini 8200 €.
In reply to COGAM’s requests to the project’s main contractor, it was informed that the situation resulted from the Commission’s failure to honour its fi financial commitments.
Glavni izvajalki sta v odgovor na njegove zahteve COGAM obvestili, da je to posledica neizpolnjenih finančnih obveznosti Komisije. e.
The complainant wrote to the Commission on 7 June 2002 asking for information on the state of the file, and requesting the payment of its outstanding fees.
Pritožnik je 7. junij a 2002 Komisij o pisno prosil za informacij e o stanju primera in zahteval plačilo neporavnanih obveznosti.
COGAM did not receive a reply to its le er.
COGAM na svoje pismo ni prejel odgovora.
On the basis of the above, the complainant alleged, in summary, that the Commission had not replied to COGAM’s request for information of 7 June 2002.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je pritožnik povzel, da Komisij a ni odgovorila na COGAM-ovo zahtevo po informacijah z dne 7. junij a 2002.
Since the project was completed in February 1999, she claimed that the Commission should make the final payment, so that all subcontractors can receive their dues.
Glede na to, da se je projekt zaključil februarja 1999, je zahteval končno plačilo Komisije, tako da bi podizvajalci lahko dobili svoje dolgovane zneske.
On 7 October 1997 the complainant, as a subcontractor, and the Eberhard Karls Universität, as the main contractor, entered into an agreement with the Commission for the implementation of a project on the “Evaluation of Guided Group Programmes for People with AIDS/VIH”.
7. oktobra 1997 sta pritožnik, kot podizvajalec, in Univerza Eberharda Karla, kot glavni izvajalec, sklenila dogovor s Komisij o o izvajanju projekta “Vrednotenje programov vodenih skupin za ljudi z virusom HIV/aidsom”.
The project received Community assistance through the EUROVITHA Community Programme on the fight against AIDS.
Projekt je prejel pomoč Skupnosti v sklopu programa za boj proti aidsu EUROVITHA.
In his capacity as project co-ordinator, Professor H. of the Eberhard Karls Universität was responsible for selecting subcontractors for specific parts of the project, and concluding individual contracts.
Kot koordinator projekta je bil profesor H. iz Univerze Eberharda Karla odgovoren za izbor podizvajalcev za posamezne dele projekta in za sklepanje posameznih pogodb.
The Commission noted that COGAM was one of these sub-contractors, with which the institution did not have any direct contractual relationship.
Komisij a je omenila, da je COGAM eden od teh podizvajalcev, s katerim institucij a ni imela nobenega neposrednega pogodbenega razmerja.
The Commission’s financial contribution was to be paid to the main contractor, namely Eberhard Karls Universität, following the submission of the necessary reports.
Finančni prispevek Komisij e so po predložitvi potrebnih poročil morali plačati glavnemu izvajalcu, v tem primeru Univerzi Eberharda Karla.
The first technical and financial reports had been presented to its services in October 1999.
Prva tehnična in finančna poročila so službam Komisij e predstavili oktobra 1999.
The final report, however, was only received three years later, in November 2002.
Končno poročilo je prispelo šele po treh letih novembra 2002.