natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 9 provides that the final case report, which contains a synopsis of the information gathered during the investigation, shall be sent to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned and the institution, body, offi ce or agency concerned, for follow up action.
Člen 9 določa, da se mora končno poročilo primera, ki vsebuje strnjen pregled informacijzbranih med preiskavo, poslati sodnim organom zadevne države članice in zadevni institucij i, organu, uradu ali agencij i v nadaljnje ukrepanje.
On 12 July 2002, the complainant sent a note to OLAF requesting to be informed as to the outcome of the investigation.
12. julij a 2002 je pritožnica OLAF-u poslala sporočilo in zahtevala, da jo obvestijo o izidu preiskave.
On 9 August 2002, OLAF sent a note to the Head of Unit at DG RTD, se ing forth the conclusions of the investigation.
9. avgusta 2002 je OLAF poslal sporočilo vodji enote GD RTD, kjer je navedel zaključke preiskave.
2.3 The Ombudsman points out that OLAF annexed a copy of the final case report to its opinion on the complaint, in the knowledge that the opinion and its annexes would be forwarded to the complainant as part of the Ombudsman’s normal inquiry procedure.
2.3 Evropski varuh opozarja, da je OLAF svojemu stališču o pritožbi priložil kopij o končnega poročila, s tem da je vedel, da bodo mnenje in njegove priloge posredovane pritožnici kot del običajnega postopka preiskave Evropskega varuha.
The Ombudsman does not therefore understand OLAF to argue that the provisions of Regulation 1073/1999 prevented it from communicating the results of its investigation to the complainant.
Evropski varuh zato ne razume sklicevanja OLAF-a, da so mu določbe Uredbe 1073/1999 preprečile posredovanje izidov preiskave pritožnici.
The Ombudsman concludes that OLAF has taken appropriate action to se le this aspect of the complaint, by informing the complainant of the results of its investigation during the Ombudsman’s inquiry.
Evropski varuh sklepa, da je OLAF ustrezno ukrepal, da bi uredil ta vidik pritožbe, in sicer z obveščanjem pritožnice o izidih njegove preiskave med preiskavo Evropskega varuha.
No further inquiries by the Ombudsman are therefore necessary.
Nadaljnje preiskave Evropskega varuha zato niso potrebne.
The claim to be informed of the interservice consultation
Zahteva po obveščanju o medsektorskem posvetovanju
3.1 The complainant claims that OLAF should inform her whether the OLAF unit which replied to the interservice consultation before the project was approved at the beginning of the year 2002 was aware of her complaint.
3.1 Pritožnica trdi, da bi jo OLAF moral obvestiti o tem, ali se je enota OLAF-a, ki je odgovorila na medsektorsko posvetovanje, preden je bil projekt v začetku leta 2002 odobren, zavedala njene pritožbe.
3.2 According to OLAF, it has no record of having been consulted as part of an interservice consultation on this project.
3.2 OLAF nima dokaza o tem, da se je o tem projektu posvetoval v okviru medsektorskih posvetovanj. Generalni direktor GD RTD je poslal pismo generalnemu direktorju OLAF-a, v katerem je razložil, da bo Komisij i predlagal financiranje projekta, ker ne obstajajo nasprotni razlogi.
The Director General of OLAF replied that the investigation was still ongoing, but that the information in OLAF’s possession at that time did not suggest a reason for advising against continued financing for the project.
Generalni direktor OLAF-a je odgovoril, da preiskava še traja, vendar iz informacij , ki jih je takrat imel OLAF, niso izhajali razlogi za odsvetovanje nadaljevanja financiranja projekta.
3.3 The Ombudsman considers that OLAF’s opinion provides the information claimed by the complainant and that no further inquiries by the Ombudsman are therefore necessary.
3.3 Evropski varuh meni, da mnenje OLAF-a zagotavlja informacije, ki jih je zahtevala pritožnica in da nadaljnje preiskave Evropskega varuha zato niso potrebne.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce.
Na osnovi preiskav Evropskega varuha glede te pritožbe sledi, da ni bilo nepravilnosti v Evropskem uradu za boj proti goljufijam.
Decision on complaint 1141/2002/GG (Confidential) against the European Agency for Reconstruction
Sklep o pritožbi 1141/2002/GG (zaupno) zoper Evropsko agencij o za obnovo
According to the complaint lodged in June 2002, the complainant, a German national, worked as a consultant in Kosovo on the basis of two contracts.
Glede na pritožbo vloženo junij a 2002 je pritožnik, nemški državljan, delal kot svetovalec na Kosovu na podlagi dveh pogodb.
The first contract (OBNOVA Service Contract no. 99/KOS04/03/001) concerned a project entitled “ATA for an expert on Waste, Water and Sanitation Project Management”.
Prva pogodba (pogodba o delu OBNOVA št. 99/KOS04/03/001) se je nanašala na projekt “ATA za strokovnjaka za vodenje projekta na področju dela z odpadki, vodo in sanitarnim zdravstvom”.
According to Article 5 of the contract, the complainant was to be paid a remuneration of up to 196.970 € for his services.
Sklepi preiskav odobritve zahtevanih poročil in dela s strani naročnika, kot je določeno v formalnih pogojih.
The last payment (balance) shall be paid within 60 days of the Contracting Authority acceptance of the final report.”
Zadnje plačilo (razlika) se mora izvršiti v 60 dneh po potrditvi končnega poročila.”
According to Addendum no. 1 to this contract that was subsequently signed by the complainant and the European Agency for Reconstruction (that appears to have taken over the contract from the Commission), the maximum remuneration was increased to 268.090 €.
V skladu z dodatkom št. 1 k tej pogodbi, ki sta ga pozneje podpisala pritožnik in Evropska agencij a za obnovo (to se je zgodilo s prevzemom pogodbe od Komisije), se je najvišji honorar povečal na 268.090 €.
On 12 July 2001, the complainant submi ed a request for a final payment amounting to 59.387 € to the Agency.
12. julij a 2001 je pritožnik pri agencij i vložil zahtevek za končno plačilo v vrednosti 59.387 €.
According to the complainant, there was a dispute as to how and by whom one of the complainant’s assistants was to be paid which concerned a total sum of approximately 5000 €.
Po navedbah pritožnika je prišlo do spora o tem, kako in kdo mora plačati enega izmed pomočnikov pritožnika, kar se je nanašalo na skupno vrednost približno 5000 €.
The complainant alleged that for reasons unknown and never communicated to him the Agency had decided to bring this case to the a ention of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF), using this procedure in order to withhold the remainder of the undisputed and due payment of nearly 50.000 €.
Pritožnik je navedel, da se je agencij a iz neznanih in njemu nikoli posredovanih razlogov odločila na ta primer opozoriti Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF), da bi tako zadržala preostanek nespornega in dolgovanega plačila za okoli 50.000 €.
The second contract (“Supervisory Board Expert at Pristina – 99/KOS04/03/016”) was signed by the complainant and the Agency on 1 August 2001.
Drugo pogodbo (“Strokovnjak nadzornega sveta v Prištini - 99/KOS04/03/016”) sta pritožnik in agencij a podpisala 1. avgusta 2001.
According to Article 3 of the contract, the maximum contract value was to be 70.500 €.
V skladu s členom 3 pogodbe naj bi bil največji pogodbeni znesek 70.500 €.
On 28 February 2002, the complainant requested the Agency to make a second interim payment of 19.387 € and a final payment of 7050 €.
28. februarja 2002 je pritožnik zahteval, da mu agencij a izplača drugo vmesno plačilo v višini 19.387 € in končno plačilo v višini 7050 €.
According to the complainant, there was a dispute about the number of days that he worked which concerned a sum of approximately 8000 €.
Po navedbah pritožnika je prišlo do spora o številu njegovih delovnih dni, kar se je nanašalo na znesek v višini približno 8000 €.
The complainant claims that the Agency should quickly finalise its review of his invoices and pay the relevant sums.
Pritožnik zahteva, da agencij a hitro zaključi pregled njegovih računov in plača ustrezne zneske.
The Agency’s opinion
Mnenje agencij e
In its opinion, the European Agency for Reconstruction made the following comments:
Evropska agencij a za obnovo je v svojem mnenju podala naslednje pripombe:
The Agency had suspended payments on the two contracts concerned due to identified anomalies regarding the presentation of the invoices.
Agencij a je zadržala izplačila iz dveh pogodb zaradi nepravilnosti glede predložitve računov.
To date, the Agency had not received satisfactory answers from the complainant to queries that the Agency had put to him.
Do danes agencij a od pritožnika ni prejela zadovoljivega odgovora na vprašanja, ki mu jih je zastavila.
On the contrary, the Agency had received from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and more particularly from the la er’s EU Pillar (the section of the UN administration where the complainant was engaged), information that had given cause for suspicion about possible fraudulent intentions of the complainant.
Nasprotno pa je agencij a od začasne uprave Misije Združenih narodov na Kosovu (UNMIK), natančneje od njenega stebra EU (oddelka uprave Združenih narodov, kjer je bil pritožnik zaposlen), prejela informacijo, ki je podala razlog za sum o možnih goljufivih namerah pritožnika.
The information had related to irregularities that had been of such a nature that the Agency had decided to forward this case to OLAF.
Informacij a se je nanašala na nepravilnosti, ki so bile takšne narave, da se je agencij a odločila ta primer posredovati OLAF-u.
A copy of the Agency’s le er to OLAF of 12 December 2001 (without its enclosures) that summarised the questions concerning the perceived irregularities was annexed to the Agency’s opinion.
Kopij a pisma agencij e OLAF-u z dne 12. decembra 2001 (brez prilog), v katerem so bila povzeta vprašanja glede opaženih nepravilnosti, je bila priložena stališču agencije. e.
During its own investigation, OLAF had discovered other irregularities that potentially related to the complainant’s activities in Kosovo, and these irregularities might have occurred whilst he had been under contract with the Agency.
Med lastno preiskavo je OLAF odkril druge nepravilnosti, ki bi se lahko nanašale na dejavnosti pritožnika na Kosovu. Te nepravilnosti bi se lahko zgodile v času, ko je bil pritožnik v pogodbenem razmerju z agencijo.
These other serious irregularities related to a transfer of about 4.500.000 € to a bank account in Gibraltar.
Druge nepravilnosti so se nanašale na prenos okoli 4.500.000 € na račun pri banki v Gibraltarju. Ta prenos se je nanašal na plačilo, izvedeno za izvoz elektrike iz Kosova v Srbijo.
The complainant had been managing the export procedure on behalf of UNMIK.
Pritožnik je v imenu UNMIK vodil izvozni postopek.
Furthermore, there was some doubt with regard to the complainant’s academic qualifications, which were currently being checked by OLAF in conjunction with UNMIK.
Neporavnani zneski so tako ostali zadržani, dokler agencij a in finančni nadzornik nista prejela odločitve OLAF-a, da je 1. februarja 2002 začel zunanjo preiskavo o zgoraj omenjenih pogodbah.
2002 to suspend payments on both contracts.
Glede na to izjavo za javnost so pritožnika 4. decembra 2002 v Nemčiji aretirali, sodni postopek pa je v teku.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Uvodna pripomba
1.1 The European Agency for Reconstruction annexed fi ve documents to its opinion in this case.
1.1 Evropska agencij a za obnovo je k svojemu mnenju v tem primeru priložila pet dokumentov.
It subsequently informed the Ombudsman that the opinion of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF), the author of the documents contained in annexes 3 and 4 of the opinion, should be sought before disclosing these documents.
Pozneje je obvestila Evropskega varuha, da mora pridobiti mnenje Evropskega urada za boj proti prevaram (OLAF), avtorja dokumentov, vsebovanih v prilogah 3 in 4 mnenja, preden razkrije te dokumente.
1.2 The Ombudsman therefore wrote to the Agency and asked it to clarify the ma er by 23 November 2002, pointing out that if the relevant documents were to be treated as confidential they would be returned to the Agency and could not be used in the present inquiry.
1.2 Evropski varuh je zato pisal agencij i in jo prosil, da zadevo razjasni do 23. novembra 2002 ter pri tem opozoril, da bodo ustrezni dokumenti vrnjeni agencij i in ne bodo uporabljeni v preiskavi, če jih bo potrebno obravnavati kot zaupne.
On 20 November 2002, the Agency informed the Ombudsman that it was seeking confirmation from OLAF that the relevant documents were of a sensitive nature and could not be disclosed until OLAF’s investigations were finalised. finalised.
20. novembra 2002 je agencij a obvestila Evropskega varuha, da je od OLAF-a zahtevala potrditev, da so ustrezni dokumenti občutljive narave in da jih ne morejo razkriti, dokler OLAF ne zaključi preiskav.
1.3 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman decided to return the relevant documents to the Agency.
1.3 V takšnih okoliščinah se je Evropski varuh odločil vrniti ustrezne dokumente agencij i.
These documents will therefore not be considered in the present inquiry.
Ti dokumenti zato v tej preiskavi ne bodo upoštevani.
Failure to process invoices and to pay outstanding amounts
Neobdelava računov in neplačilo neporavnanih zneskov
According to the complainant, the Agency had failed to finalise its review of his invoices (of 12 July 2001 and of 28 February 2002) and to pay the outstanding sums.
Po navedbah pritožnika agencij a ni zaključila poročila o njegovih računih (z dne 12. julij a 2001 in 28. februarja 2002) in ni plačala neporavnanih zneskov.
The complainant alleged that he was still owed some 80.000 € by the Agency.
Pritožnik trdi, da mu agencij a še vedno dolguje 80.000 €.
2.2 The Agency pointed out that payments on the two contracts concerned had been suspended due to identified anomalies regarding the presentation of the invoices and that no satisfactory answers from the complainant to the Agency’s queries had yet been received.
2.2 Agencij a je opozorila, da so bila plačila iz dveh zadevnih pogodb zadržana zaradi nepravilnosti glede predložitve računov in da od pritožnika doslej še ni prejela zadovoljivih odgovorov na svoja vprašanja.
According to the Agency, the la er furthermore received information from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) that gave cause for suspicion about possible fraudulent intentions of the complainant.
Poleg tega je po navedbah agencij e zadnja prejeta informacij a začasne uprave Misije Združenih narodov na Kosovu (UNMIK) podala razlog za sum o možnih goljufivih namerah pritožnika.
Still according to the Agency, the information related to irregularities that were of such a nature that the Agency decided to forward this case to the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF).
Informacij a v zvezi z nepravilnostmi je bila takšne narave, da se je agencij a odločila ta primer posredovati Evropskemu uradu za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
On 1 February 2002, OLAF decided to open an external investigation into the above-mentioned contracts.
1. februarja 2002 se je OLAF odločil začeti zunanjo preiskavo o zgoraj omenjenih pogodbah.
The Agency pointed out that during its own investigation, OLAF had discovered serious other irregularities that potentially related to the complainant’s activities in Kosovo.
Agencij a je opozorila, da je OLAF med lastno preiskavo odkril druge resne nepravilnosti, ki bi se lahko nanašale na dejavnosti pritožnika na Kosovu.
These other irregularities related to a transfer of about 4.500.000 € to a bank account in Gibraltar.
Te druge nepravilnosti so se nanašale na prenos okoli 4.500.000 € na račun pri banki v Gibraltarju.
According to the Agency, the competent Financial Controller thereupon decided to suspend payments on both contracts until the results of OLAF’s investigations became available.
Po navedbah agencij e se je pristojni finančni nadzornik zato odločil zadržati plačila iz obeh pogodb, dokler izidi preiskav OLAF-a ne bodo na razpolago.
2.5 However, the Ombudsman considers that the scope of the review that he can carry out in such cases is necessarily limited.
Ta pritožba se nanaša na obveznosti iz pogodb, sklenjenih med agencijo48 in pritožnikom.
2.7 In the present case, the Agency has put forward a coherent and reasonable account of the reasons for which it believes that the complainant’s claims cannot be complied with for the time being.
2.4 V skladu s členom 195 Pogodbe ES je Evropski varuh pristojen za prejemanje pritožb “v zvezi s primeri nepravilnosti v dejavnostih institucijali organov Skupnosti”.
In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of the Agency.
Varuh meni, da se nepravilnost pojavi, ko javni organ ne deluje v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki je zanj zavezujoče49.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Agency for Reconstruction.
Nepravilnosti lahko tako najdemo v zvezi z izpolnitvijo obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pogodb, ki so jih sklenile institucij e in organi Skupnosti.
The first contract was originally concluded by the European Commission, but subsequently taken over by the Agency.
Prva pogodba je bila prvotno sklenjena z Evropsko komisijo, vendar jo je naknadno prevzela agencij a.
See Annual Report 1997, pages 22 sequ.
Glej letno poročilo 1997, stran 22 in naprej.
Decisions following an inquiry
Zato Evropski varuh primer zaključuje.
CASESSETTLED BY THEINSTITUTION
PRIMERI, REŠENISSTRANIINSTITUCIJE
3.2.1 The European Parliament
3.2.1 Evropski parlament
ALLEGED FAILURE TO STATE REASONS FOR REJECTION OF TRANSLATION BIDS
DOMNEVNE OPUSTITVE NAVEDBE RAZLOGOV ZA ZAVRNITEV PONUDB ZA IZVAJANJE PREVAJALSKIH STORITEV
Decision on complaint 2024/2002/OV against the European Parliament
Sklep o pritožbi 2024/2002/OV zoper Evropski parlament
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
In April 2002, the complainant sent 11 bids further to various calls for tenders for translation services launched by the European Parliament.
Aprila 2002 je pritožnik poslal 11 ponudb na različne javne razpise za prevajalske storitve, ki jih je razpisal Evropski parlament.
Several of the complainant’s bids were rejected.
Več ponudb pritožnika je bilo zavrnjenih.
As regards the bids for Swedish and French, Parliament informed the complainant in July 2002 that there were too many linguistic mistakes.
O ponudbah za švedščino in francoščino je Parlament julij a 2002 pritožnika obvestil, da sta ponudbi vsebovali preveč jezikovnih napak.
Given that the tender specifications mentioned a rejection of a bid in case of more than fi ve linguistic mistakes, the complainant sent an email on 7 August 2002 requesting clarification from Parliament concerning the mistakes.
Glede na to, da so razpisni pogoji omenjali zavrnitev ponudbe v primeru več kot pet jezikovnih napak, je pritožnik 7. avgusta 2002 po e-pošti od Parlamenta zahteval pojasnilo v zvezi z napakami.
In its reply of 3 October 2002, Parliament summed up the mistakes, without however indicating what they consisted of.
V odgovoru 3. oktobra 2002 je Parlament zbral napake, vendar ni navedel njihove vsebine.
As regards the bid for Italian, it was first rejected because of financial reasons.
Kar zadeva ponudbo za italijanščino, je bila najprej zavrnjena zaradi finančnih razlogov.
When the complainant wrote back to Parliament, the la er replied on 3 October 2002 stating that it had re-evaluated the bid but that this time it was eliminated because of linguistic mistakes: namely, spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors.
Sklepi preiskav ponovno ovrednotena, vendar je bila tokrat zavrnjena zaradi jezikovnih napak: namreč pravopisnih, slovničnih in napak pri postavljanju ločil.
No details were given, however, concerning the nature of these mistakes.
Posredovane pa niso bile nobene podrobnosti o naravi teh napak.
Finally, as regards the bid for Greek, it was rejected without an exact explanation.
Brez natančne razlage je bila zavrnjena tudi ponudba za grščino.
There were apparently fi ve bids for Greek, three of which were selected.
Ponudb za grščino je bilo pet, tri od teh so bile izbrane.
The complainant has obtained information that the first selected bidder did not accept the tender.
Pritožnik je dobil podatke, da prvoizbrani ponudnik ni sprejel ponudbe.
The complainant has however no information about who is in the third and fourth positions.
Nima pa podatkov, kdo je na tretjem in četrtem mestu.
The complainant wrote to Parliament on 7 October 2002 and sent a reminder le er on 31 October 2002, but received no reply.
Pritožnik je 7. oktobra 2002 Parlamentu pisal in mu 31. oktobra 2002 poslal opomin, vendar ni dobil nobenega odgovora.
On 19 November 2002, the complainant lodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman making the following three allegations :
19. novembra 2002 je vložil pritožbo pri Evropskem varuhu in navedel naslednje tri trditve:
Parliament has not explained in detail why the complainant’s bids for Swedish and French have been rejected because of linguistic mistakes.
Parlament ni podal podrobnih pojasnil o jezikovnih napakah, na podlagi katerih so bile zavrnjene pritožnikove ponudbe za švedščino in francoščino.
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.
Parlament je podal nov razlog za zavrnitev ponudbe za italijanščino, vendar ni navedel podrobnosti o jezikovnih napakah, ki so bile razlog za zavrnitev.
Parliament gave no exact reason for the rejection of the bid for Greek.
Parlament ni podal natančnega razloga za zavrnitev ponudbe za grščino.
On 29 January 2003, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman informing him that, since lodging the complaint, Parliament had provided more information concerning the linguistic mistakes in the complainant’s bids.
29. januarja 2003 je pritožnik pisno obvestil Evropskega varuha, da je, odkar je nanj naslovil pritožbo, Parlament zagotovil več podatkov o jezikovnih napakah v njegovih ponudbah.
As regards the Swedish and French bids, the complainant accepted the mistakes pointed out by Parliament.
Kar zadeva ponudbi za švedščino in francoščino, je pritožnik sprejel napake, na katere je opozoril Parlament.
As regards the Italian bid, the complainant observed that it could agree with certain corrections, some of which were ma ers of style.
Kar zadeva ponudbo za italijanščino, je pritožnik pripomnil, da se lahko strinja z določenimi popravki, od katerih jih je nekaj slogovnih.
However, Parliament gave two different reasons.
Vendar pa je Parlament dal dva različna razloga.
The European Parliament’s opinion
Mnenje Evropskega parlamenta
As regards the first allegation, Parliament stated that it informed the complainant on 22 July 2002 that its off ers for the calls for tenders ref. CRE-0207-FR-EP and CRE-0211-SV-EP had been rejected at the selection stage due to the poor linguistic quality of the off er.
Kar zadeva prvo trditev, je Parlament pojasnil, da je pritožnika 22. julij a 2002 obvestil, da sta njegovi ponudbi na javna razpisa CRE-0207-FR-EP in CRE-0211-SV-EP bili zavrnjeni na stopnji izbora zaradi nizke jezikovne kakovosti ponudb.
Parliament referred to Article 2.2 of the General Specifications, which mentions that the “presentation of a tender which contains more than fi ve spelling, punctuation or grammar errors will lead to exclusion”.
Parlament je opozoril na člen 2.2 Splošnih specifi kacij , ki omenjajo, da bo “ponudba, ki vsebuje več kot pet pravopisnih, slovničnih napak ali napak ob postavljanju ločil, izključena”.
Following a request for more detailed information as to why it had reached this decision, Parliament informed the complainant by le er of 30 September 2002 of the exact number and type of errors in the two bids.
Po zahtevi za podrobnejše podatke o tem, zakaj je odločitev bila taka, je Parlament 30. septembra 2002 pisno obvestil pritožnika o natančnem številu in vrsti napak v obeh ponudbah.