natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3 the complainant alleges that the Selection Board did not respect the conditions of point VI.D of the competition notice, as he obtained information that a number of candidates who did not obtain the minimum marks on the preselection tests were nevertheless included in the list of 600 candidates foreseen by the competition notice.
Pritožnik navaja, da Izbirna komisij a ni upoštevala pogojev iz točke VI.D v objavi razpisa, ko je prejel informacijo, da so bili nekateri kandidati, ki niso dosegli najmanjšega zahtevanega števila točk pri predizbirnih testih, vseeno vključeni na seznam 600 kandidatov, predvidenih v objavi razpisa.
The Commission’s opinion
Stališče Komisij e
By le er of 14 December 2001, the unit Admin.A.2 informed the complainant of the results of the preselection tests.
Enota Admin.A.2 je s pismom 14. decembra 2001 obvestila pritožnika o rezultatih predizbirnih testov.
As the complainant obtained 16,842 out of 40 for test b) concerning verbal and numerical reasoning, and the minimum required mark was 20, the Selection Board did not proceed with the correction of his wri en test, in accordance with point VI.D of the competition notice according to which every mark below the minimum mark is eliminatory.
Pritožnik je dosegel 16,842 točk od možnih 40 pri testu b) verbalno in številčno sklepanje. Najmanjše zahtevano število je bilo 20, izbirna komisij a ni nadaljevala s popravljanjem njegovega pisnega testa, v skladu s točko VI.D objave razpisa, ki določa, da je vsak rezultat pod najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk izločilen.
The complainant was also informed that the Selection Board had decided to annul a question of test a) and questions 9 and 37 of test b) because of errors discovered a er the tests took place.
Pritožnik je bil obveščen, da se je izbirna komisij a odločila razveljaviti vprašanje testa a) ter vprašanji 9 in 37 testa b) zaradi napak, odkritih po testiranju.
In order to guarantee equality between candidates, the decision to annul these questions was applied to all linguistic versions.
Da bi zagotovili enakost kandidatov, velja odločitev o razveljavitvi teh vprašanj za vse jezikovne različice.
Further to his request of 18 December 2001, the complainant was provided with a copy of his optical answer sheet and of the sheet with the correct answers of the preselection tests.
Nadalje je bila v zvezi z njegovo zahtevo z dne 18. decembra 2001 pritožniku posredovana kopij a optične pole z odgovori in pola s pravilnimi odgovori predizbornih testov.
By le er of 10 January 2002, the complainant questioned the quality of test b) as well as the annulment of questions, considering that it had in fact created an inequality, which affected his legitimate expectations.
V pismu z dne 10. januarja 2002 je pritožnik podvomil v kakovost testa b), kakor tudi v razveljavitev vprašanj, saj je bila ustvarjena neenakost, ki je ogrozila njegova legitimna pričakovanja.
In its answer, the Selection Board explained to the complainant the aim of the verbal and numerical reasoning test and the reason, which led to the annulment of the questions.
V odgovoru je izbirna komisij a pojasnila pritožniku namen testa verbalnega in številčnega sklepanja in razlog za razveljavitev vprašanj.
As regards now the allegation of the complainant concerning the annulment of the questions,
V zvezi s trditvami pritožnika glede razveljavitve vprašanj se je Komisij a sklicevala na sodno
According to this case law, the candidates are supposed to answer all questions and not only to those questions which they would like to choose.
V skladu s to sodno prakso morajo kandidati odgovoriti prakso Sodišča prve stopnje in Sodišča na vsa vprašanja in ne le na tista, ki bi jih radi izbrali.
The number and the contents of the questions for which an answer is necessary are therefore identical for all candidates.
Število in vsebina vprašanj, na katera je treba odgovoriti, je zato identična za vse kandidate.
The chances of the candidates remain unchanged if at a later stage a certain number of questions are eliminated.
Možnosti kandidatov ostajajo enake, tudi če so kasneje kakšna vprašanja odpravljena.
The Commission also pointed out that there had not been a different appreciation of the questions as such, as the same number of points were a ributed to each question.
Komisij a je tudi poudarila, da vprašanja niso bila neenako vrednotena, ker je vsak odgovor prinašal enako število točk.
As regards the allegation that the Selection Board did not take into account that the complainant’s answers to questions 5, 8, 11, 13 and 25 of test b) could also be deduced from the contents of the test, the Commission observed that the Selection Board examined them, but that this did not allow to change its decision on the marks.
V zvezi s trditvami, da izbirna komisij a ni upoštevala, da bi bili lahko tudi pritožnikovi odgovori na vprašanja 5, 8, 11 in 25 testa b) izvzeti iz vsebine testa, Komisij a ugotavlja, da jih je izbirna komisij a pregledala, vendar zato ni smela spremeniti odločitve o oceni.
As regards the complainant’s allegation that the Selection Board did not respect point VI.D of the competition notice, the Commission observed that all the conditions of the competition notice have been respected and that, a er the correction of the preselection tests, the wri en tests were corrected of only those candidates who had obtained the minimum mark for every test and the best marks for the entire tests.
V zvezi s trditvami pritožnika, da izbirna komisij a ni upoštevala točke VI.D objave razpisa, Komisij a meni, da so bili upoštevani vsi pogoji objave razpisa in, da so bili po pregledu predizbirnih testov popravljeni pisni testi le tistih kandidatov z najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk pri vsakem testu in najboljšim rezultatom pri celotnem testu.
The number of candidates who obtained the minimum required marks for the preselection test of field 02 of the competition was superior to the 600 candidates foreseen in the competition notice.
Število kandidatov z najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk na predizbirnih testih s področja 02 objave razpisa, je bilo višje od 600 kandidatov, predvidenih v objavi razpisa.
The complainant’s observations
Mnenje pritožnika
As regards the annulment of questions 9 and 37 of test b), the complainant observed that the principle of equality of treatment was violated because the annulment has advantaged the candidates who had given the wrong answer, whereas it has penalised the candidates who had given the correct answer.
V zvezi z razveljavitvijo vprašanj 9 in 37 testa b) pritožnik meni, da je bilo kršeno načelo enakosti obravnavanja, ker je razveljavitev koristila kandidatom z napačnim odgovorom, škodila pa kandidatom s pravilnim odgovorom.
As regards the second allegation, the complainant gives the example of the reply he gave to question n° 13 and which could, according to him, also be deduced from the text and was therefore not wrong: He chose answer (b), namely “en faisant a ention à sa technique de respiration, il est possible de réduire sa tension artérielle”. He chose answer (b) on basis of the following information in the text “il est possible d’obtenir des résultats remarquables par la simple application de techniques respiratoires : diminution de la tension artérielle”.
V zvezi z drugo trditvijo navaja pritožnik kot primer odgovor, ki ga je podal na vprašanje 13, ki bi bilo lahko izključeno iz besedila, in zato odgovor ni bil napačen. Izbral je namreč odgovor (b) “en faisant a ention à sa technique de respiration, il est possible de réduire sa tension artérielle”. Odgovor (b) je izbral na podlagi naslednje informacij e v besedilu “il est possible d’obtenir des résultats remarquables par la simple application de techniques respiratoires : diminution de la tension artérielle”.
The complainant wants to know why his answer was not correct.
Pritožnik bi rad vedel, zakaj je njegov odgovor napačen.
As regards the third allegation, the complainant wants the Ombudsman to check that the Selection Board did respect point VI.D of the competition notice, by asking from the Commission the list of the candidates (and their results) who have passed all the preselection tests.
V zvezi s tretjo trditvijo želi pritožnik, da Varuh preveri, ali je izbirna komisij a upoštevala točko VI.D objave razpisa, tako da od Komisij e pridobi seznam tistih kandidatov (skupaj z rezultati), ki so opravili predizbirne teste.
FURTHER INQUIRIES
NADALJNJE PREISKAVE
A er having considered the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary to help take a decision on the third allegation of the complainant.
Ob upoštevanju mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnika, je očitno, da so za pomoč pri sprejemu odločitve glede tretje trditve pritožnika potrebne nadaljnje preiskave.
According to this allegation, the Selection Board would not have respected the conditions of point VI.D of the competition notice if, according to the information he obtained, a number of candidates who would not have obtained the minimum marks for the preselection tests of field 02 would nevertheless have been included in the list of 600 successful candidates.
V skladu s to trditvijo naj bi izbirna komisij a ne spoštovala pogojev iz točke VI.D objave razpisa, če je bilo (v skladu z informacijo, ki jo je dobil) določeno število kandidatov z doseženim najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk v predizbirnih testih s področja 02 vseeno vključenih na listo 600 uspešnih kandidatov.
The inspection of the fi le
Pregled spisa
The Ombudsman therefore wrote to the Commission to inspect the Commission’s file, and more particularly the list of successful candidates of the preselection tests in field 02.
Varuh je zato pisal Komisij i, naj pregleda spis, še posebej listo uspešnih kandidatov predizbirnih testov s področja 02.
Order P. Giulie i C-263/01 of 13 December 2001 (points 35 and 36).
Nalog P. Giulie i C-263/01 z dne 13. decembra 2001 (točki 35 in 36).
The annulment of questions of the preselection test
Razveljavitev vprašanj predizbirnih testov
1.1 The complainant alleges that by annulling questions 9 and 37 of test b), the Selection Board did not respect the principle of equality between the candidates.
1.1 Pritožnik navaja, da izbirna komisij a z razveljavitvijo vprašanj 9 in 37 ni spoštovala načela enakosti med kandidati.
He observes that by annulling these two questions, an inequality is created between the candidates who replied correctly and those who replied wrongly to the said questions.
Z razveljavitvijo dveh vprašanj je bila po mnenju pritožnika ustvarjena neenakost med kandidati, ki so na vprašanje odgovorili pravilno in tistimi, ki so na zastavljena vprašanja odgovorili nepravilno.
1.2 The Commission refers to the case law of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, according to which the candidates are supposed to answer all questions and the chances of the candidates remain unchanged if at a later stage a certain number of questions are eliminated.
1.2 Komisij a se sklicuje na sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje, na podlagi katere se šteje, da kandidati odgovorijo na vsa vprašanja, možnosti kandidatov pa ostajajo nespremenjene, če so kakšna vprašanja kasneje izločena.
1.3 In his previous decisions in cases 761/99/BB and 729/2000/OV which take into account the established case-law of the Community Courts, the Ombudsman has considered that, in the case where a question of a test proves to be ambiguous, the decision to eliminate this question from the test is reasonable, provided that this elimination is carried out in such a way as to ensure that the interests of candidates are not negatively affected.
1.3 V svojih predhodnih sklepih, v primerih 761/99/BB in 729/2000/OV, ob upoštevanju veljavne sodne prakse sodišč Skupnosti, je Varuh menil, da je v primerih dvoumnih vprašanj pri testu odločitev o njihovi izločitvi upravičena, pod pogojem, da je izločitev izvedena brez negativnih vplivov za interese kandidatov.
On the basis of the evidence submi ed to him, the Ombudsman takes the view that there is nothing to suggest that this condition was not complied with in the present case, given that the Commission appears to have eliminated questions 9 and 37 of test b) for all the candidates.
Na podlagi predloženih dokazov Varuh meni, da je ta pogoj v danem primeru izpolnjen, saj je Komisij a očitno izločila vprašanji 9 in 37 testa b) za vse kandidate.
1.4 On basis of the above, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Commission with regard to this allegation.
1.4 Na podlagi navedenega izhaja, da je Komisij a ni ravnala nepravilno in so tozadevni očitki neutemeljeni.
The alleged failure to reason its reply to complainant’s claim
Očitek, da v odgovoru pritožniku niso bili navedeni razlogi
2.1 The complainant alleges that the Selection Board did not reason its reply on his claim that his answers on questions 5, 8, 11, 13 and 25 of test b) could also be deduced from the text which was submi ed to the candidates.
2.1 Pritožnik trdi, da izbirna komisij a ni utemeljila svojega odgovora na njegovo zahtevo, da bi lahko bili njegovi odgovori na vprašanja 5, 8, 13 in 25 v testu b) prav tako izvzeti iz besedila, ki je bilo posredovano kandidatom.
2.2 The Commission observes that the Selection Board examined the complainant’s answers, but that this did not allow to change its decision on the marks.
2.2 Komisij a meni, da je izbirna komisij a pregledala odgovore pritožnika, kar pa ni dopuščalo spremembe ocene.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the dispute between the complainant and the Commission concerns the fact whether the text put to the candidates could be understood in such a way that several correct answers were possible.
2.3 Varuh meni, da spor med pritožnikom in Komisij o zadeva dejstvo, ali besedilo, predloženo kandidatom, ponekod dopušča več pravilnih odgovorov.
The dispute therefore concerns a question of interpretation of the relevant text.
Spor obstaja torej glede razlage ustreznega besedila.
This question – which concerns the content itself of the test – falls within the discretionary power of the Selection Board.
To vprašanje, ki zadeva vsebino testa, spada v diskrecijsko pristojnost izbirne komisije. e.
2.4 Taking further into account that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the communication of the marks obtained in the various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board’s decisions are based15, the Ombudsman considers that the Selection
2.4 Ob nadaljnjem upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča predstavlja sporočilo o doseženem številu točk zadostno izjavo o razlogih, na katerih temelji odločitev komisije15.
Board has acted within the limits of its legal authority.
Varuh zato meni, da je izbirna komisij a ravnala v okviru svojih pristojnosti.
No instance of maladministration was therefore found with regard to this aspect of the case.
V tem vidiku primera zato niso bile ugotovljene nepravilnosti.
The alleged infringement of the competition notice
Očitek kršitve objave razpisa
3.1 The complainant alleges that the Selection Board did not respect the conditions of point VI.D of the competition notice, as he obtained information that a number of candidates who did not obtain the minimum marks on the preselection tests of field 02 were nevertheless included in the list of 600 candidates foreseen by the competition notice.
3.2 Komisij a meni, da je bilo število kandidatov z najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk na predizbirnih testih s področja 02 objave razpisa, višje od 600 kandidatov, predvidenih v objavi razpisa.
3.4 From the inspection, it appeared that more than 600 candidates had obtained the minimum marks for the preselection tests a), b), c) and d).
3.4 Pregled je pokazal, da je več kot 600 kandidatov dobilo najmanjše zahtevano število točk v predizbirnih testih a), b), c) in d).
There was a first list of the 600 best candidates which had all obtained the minimum marks.
Obstajal je seznam 600 najboljših kandidatov, ki so vsi dosegli najmanjše zahtevano število točk.
Moreover there was another list of candidates who had also obtained the minimum marks, but were not among the 600 best candidates.
Obstajal je celo dodaten seznam kandidatov z najmanjšim zahtevanim številom točk, ki pa niso bili uvrščeni med 600 najboljših kandidatov.
3.5 On basis of the above, the Ombudsman can confirm the accuracy of the information provided by the Commission.
3.5 Na podlagi navedenega Varuh potrjuje točnost informacije, ki jo je posredovala Komisij a.
No instance of maladministration was therefore found with regard to this aspect of the case.
V tem delu primera zato niso bile ugotovljene 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 ugotavlja, da Komisij a ni ravnala nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
ALLEGED LINGUISTIC DISCRIMINATION
ZATRJEVANJE JEZIKOVNE DISKRIMINACIJ E
Decision on complaint 659/2002/IP against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 659/2002/IP zoper Evropsko komisij o
In April 2002, Mr C. complained on behalf of the Universala Esperanto-Asocio (hereina er UEA), concerning the alleged linguistic discrimination by several European organisations, financed partially or wholly by the European Commission, which in their advertising of vacancies require “English mother tongue” or “English native speakers”.
Gospod C. se je aprila 2002 pritožil v imenu Universala Esperanto-Asocio (nadalje UEA) zaradi očitka domnevne jezikovne diskriminacij e s strani nekaterih evropskih organizacij , ki jih v celoti ali delno financira Komisij a in ki v oglasih za delovna mesta postavlja zahteve, kot so “materin jezik angleščina” ali “govorci, katerih materin jezik je angleščina”.
The complainant took the view that, as a consequence, thousands of people appear to be discriminated against; although they have a good knowledge of English, they cannot be recruited.
Mnenje pritožnika je bilo, da je zaradi tega na tisoče ljudi diskriminiranih, ker ne morejo biti zaposleni, kljub temu, da imajo dobro znanje angleščine.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that the Commission should: (i) recognise the discriminatory nature of recruitment announcements for posts officially open to all citizens but which are unofficially reserved for native English speakers; (ii) ensure that it will no longer finance the companies or organisations that exercise discrimination against European citizens that are not of English mother tongue; (iii) study the means and solutions to prevent linguistic discrimination exercised by organisations that it partially or fully finances. finances.
V pritožbi Varuhu je pritožnik trdil, da bi Komisij a morala: (i) priznati diskriminatorsko naravo objave za zaposlitev na delovno mesto, ki je uradno dostopno vsem državljanom, neuradno pa rezervirano za osebe, katerih materin jezik je angleščina, (ii) zagotoviti, da ne bo več financirala družb in organizacij , ki delujejo diskriminatorsko proti evropskim državljanom, ki niso osebe, katerih materin jezik je angleščina, (iii) najti metode in pojasnila, ki bi tako preprečevala jezikovno diskriminiranje s strani organizacij , ki jih v celoti ali deloma financira. financira.
The Commission’s opinion
Mnenje Komisij e
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission made in summary the following points:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju o pritožbi v povzetku poudarila naslednje točke:
As regards the complainant’s first claim, all recruitment announcements for posts which are officially or unofficially reserved for “native speakers” are not acceptable under Community rules on free movement of workers and discriminatory.
V zvezi z prvo trditvijo pritožnika je potrdila, da so vse objave za zaposlitev na delovna mesta, ki so uradno ali neuradno rezervirana za “govorce materinščine”, nesprejemljive po pravilih Skupnosti o prostem pretoku delavcev in diskriminatorske.
The question whether a post has been unofficially reserved for a “native speaker” has to be evaluated by the competent court in each individual case.
Vprašanje, ali je delovno mesto neuradno rezervirano za “govorce materinščine”, mora oceniti pristojno sodišče v vsakem primeru posebej.
Community law
Sklepi preiskav
The Commission’s services had given this information on several occasions directly to UEA via their representatives (by le ers of 14 May 2001, 20 July 2001, 5 October 2001, 24 January 2002 and during a meeting held on 11 March 2002).
Službe Komisij e so po svojih predstavnikih ob več priložnostih podale to informacij o neposredno UEA (pisno 14. maja 2001, 20. julij a 2001, 5. oktobra 2001, 24. januarja 2002 in med sestankom 11. marca 2002).
Furthermore, in a meeting of 24 May 2002, the Commission had informed the members of the Advisory Commi ee on Free Movement of Workers about the need to avoid all discrimination when draing job advertisements.
Na srečanju 24. maja 2002 je Komisij a obvestila člane svetovalnega odbora za prost pretok delavcev o potrebi po izogibanju vsakršne diskriminacij e pri sestavljanju oglasov za delovna mesta.
It had urged them to inform all the parties possibly involved, in both the private and the public sectors.
Vztrajala je, da obvestijo vse vpletene stranke, tako v zasebnem kot v javnem sektorju.
As regards the complainant’s second claim, the Commission stated that the rules and principles governing the award of grants, contained in the Commission’s vade-mecum on grant management, are enshrined in the new Financial Regulation17, to enter into force on 1 January 2003.
V zvezi z drugo zahtevo pritožnika je Komisij a navedla, da so pravila in načela za dodeljevanje dotacij , vsebovana v vademekumu Komisij e o upravljanju dotacij , urejena v novi finančni uredbi17, ki je stopila v veljavo 1. januarja 2003.
Article 109 reads that “the award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment. (...)”.
Člen 109 navaja, da “za dodeljevanje dotacij veljajo načela preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja. ...”.
Concerning the financing of an executive agency, foreseen by Article 55 of the new Financial Regulation, the Commission stressed that the staff of these agencies will be agents subjected to the Staff Regulations.
Kar zadeva financiranje izvajalske agencije, predvidene v členu 55 nove Finančne uredbe, je Komisij a poudarila, da bodo za osebje te agencij e veljali Kadrovski predpisi.
The rules applicable to them include the general principle of non-discrimination.
Pravila, ki veljajo zanje, vključujejo splošno načelo nediskriminacije. e.
As regards the possible discrimination caused by a requirement for “native speakers” of a specific language in job advertisements published by employers from the private sector or from non-governmental associations, the Commission cannot intervene in these cases , which must be evaluated individually by national courts.
V primerih morebitne diskriminacije, ki bi jo povzročila zahteva po “govorcih, katerih materinščina” je jezik, zahtevan v oglasih za službo, ki jih objavljajo delodajalci tako v zasebnem sektorju kot tudi v nevladnih združenjih, pa Komisij a ne more posredovati, saj morajo o teh primerih posamično odločiti nacionalna sodišča.
Furthermore, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that, on the basis of the information sent by UEA in July 2002, concerning a list of job advertisements linked to the Belgian State which appeared to be discriminatory, it registered this information as a formal complaint and the Belgian authorities would be contacted in this respect.
Ponovno je Komisij a poudarila, da se je vedno odzvala, ko je dobila informacij o o morebitnih diskriminacijskih oglasih za službo s strani organizacij , ki jih delno ali v celoti financira ter zahtevala ustrezne ukrepe za njihovo odpravo.