natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Again, the Commission pointed out that whenever its services had been informed about possible discriminatory job advertisements by organisations partially or fully financed by the institution, it had intervened asking them to take the necessary steps to correct them. Directorates General had sent le ers to the organisations closely connected with the institution in which they had strongly recommended them to ensure that: (i) language qualifications for any post are consistent with the actual level of knowledge required to perform the job in question; (ii) where a complete command of any language is an essential requirement for a particular post, descriptions such as “a complete command of” or “a thorough knowledge” are used in preference to “native speaker” or “mother tongue”; (iii) they apply a policy of equal opportunities in recruitment with no undue bias in favour of any linguistic or national group.
Generalni direktorati so poslali pisma organizacijam, tesno povezanim z institucijo, v katerih so odločno priporočili, da poskrbijo, da: (i) so jezikovne kvalifi kacij e za katerokoli delovno mesto v skladu z dejanskim nivojem jezikovnega znanja, ki se zahteva za opravljanje zadevne službe, (ii) v primerih, kjer je popolno obvladanje kateregakoli jezika ključnega pomena za določeno delovno mesto, se namesto opisov “govorec materinega jezika” ali “materin jezik”, uporablja opise “popolno obvladovanje” ali “temeljito znanje”, (iii) v zaposlovanju uveljavljajo politiko enakih možnosti brez nepotrebne pristranskosti v korist katerekoli jezikovne ali nacionalne skupine.
Furthermore, the Commission recalled that its Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs would insert in all its calls for tender and call for projects a clause drawing the potential contractors’ a ention to the illegality of “native-speaker” clauses.
Poleg tega je Komisij a poudarila, da bo njen generalni direktorat za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve v vseh svojih razpisih za zaposlitve in projekte vključil klavzulo z opozorilom za bodoče pogodbenike, da so klavzule o “govorcih materinega jezika” nezakonite.
Again, the institution drew the a ention to the fact that Eurostat was considering including in its standard tender specifications, a clause to the effect that “tenderers are reminded that Community rules on freedom of movement of workers prohibit discrimination based on nationality and that it is discriminatory to require a mother tongue knowledge of a specific language as a condition for access to a job”.
Institucij a je ponovno opozorila na dejstvo, da je Eurostat v svoje standardne opise ponudb nameraval vključiti klavzulo z namenom, da “so ponudniki opozorjeni na dejstvo, da pravila Skupnosti o prostem pretoku delavcev prepovedujejo diskriminacij o na podlagi državljanstva in da je diskriminatorsko zahtevati znanje jezika na nivoju materinega jezika kot pogoj za dostop do delovnega mesta”.
The Commission gave its opinion on this topic already in its replies to several wri en questions, i.e. in its answer of 21 February 2002 to wri en question E-4100/00: “ The Community rules on freedom of movement for workers prohibit not only overt discrimination based on nationality but also covert discrimination which, by applying seemingly neutral criteria, in fact produces the same result.
1.1 Pritožba je temeljila na očitku jezikovne diskriminacij e s strani nekaterih evropskih organizacij , ki jih delno ali v celoti financira Komisij a in ki so v svojih oglasih za delovna mesta postavljale zahteve, kot so “materin jezik angleščina” ali “govorci, katerih materin jezik je angleščina”.
Council Regulation (EC/Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248 of 16 September 2002, p.1.
Uredba Sveta (ES/Euratom) št. 1605/2002 z dne 25. junij a 2002 o finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za splošni proračun Evropskih skupnosti, UL L 248 z dne 16. septembra 2002, str.1.
In his observations, the complainant considered the Commission’s opinion to be unsatisfactory and maintained his original claims.
Sklepi preiskav 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 preprečili jezikovno diskriminiranje s strani organizacij , ki jih v celoti ali deloma f i financira.
1.1 The complaint was based on 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”.
1.2 V svojem mnenju je Komisij a opozorila, da so vse objave za zaposlitev za delovna mesta, ki so uradno ali neuradno rezervirana za “govorce materinščine”, nesprejemljive po pravilih Skupnosti o prostem pretoku delavcev in diskriminatorske.
Nevertheless, a requirement for a “perfect knowledge” cannot be seen, in principle, as contrary to Community law, and the employer has to justify the need of a very high knowledge of a specific language to be necessary for the job in question.
V zvezi s pravili in načeli, ki urejajo dodeljevanje dotacij , je Komisij a navedla, da so ta zapisana v vademekumu Komisij e o upravljanju subvencij, in urejena z novo finančno uredbo18
Article 109 reads that “the award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment. (...)”.
Člen 109 navaja: “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 submi ed to the Staff Regulations.
V zvezi s financiranjem izvajalske agencije, predvidene v členu 55 nove f i finančne uredbe, je Komisij a poudarila, da bodo za osebje te agencij e veljali Kadrovski prepisi.
As regards the third claim put forward by the complainant, the Commission gave a detailed explanation of the measures it has taken on this issue.
V zvezi s tretjo trditvijo pritožnika je Komisij a podala natančno pojasnilo o sprejetih ukrepih v tej zadevi.
A copy of the relevant documents showing the actions taken by the Commission was enclosed with the institution’s opinion.
Mnenju institucij e so bile priložene kopij e dokumentov, ki dokazujejo, da je Komisij a sprejela ustrezne ukrepe.
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission had taken actions to avoid job announcements that discriminate on the grounds of language being published in the future.
Varuh pozdravlja dejstvo, da je Komisij a ukrepala, da se v prihodnosti izogne oglasom za službo, ki diskriminirajo na podlagi jezika.
He further encouraged the institution to continue and enhance its struggle against any discrimination on the grounds of language and obstacles against the principle of free movement of workers.
Še naprej spodbuja institucije, da nadaljujejo in okrepijo boj proti vsakršni diskriminacij i na osnovi jezika in oviranju načela prostega pretoka delavcev.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Ta račun z dne 7. maja 2002 je naslovljen na g.
Council Regulation (EC/Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248 of 16 September 2002, p.1.
Uredba Sveta (ES/Euratom) št. 1605/2002 z dne 25. junij a 2002 o finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za skupni proračun Evropskih skupnosti, UL L 248 z dne 16. septembra 2002, str.1.
The complaint was forwarded to the Agency for its comments.
Sklepi preiskav je bila posredovana agencij i za mnenje.
In so far as the ‘EU Pillar’ was concerned, the complainant was informed that the identity of the complainee had still not been clarified sufficiently. ciently.
Kar se tiče ‘stebra EU’, je bil pritožnik ponovno obveščen o nezadostni jasnosti identitete organa, na katerega se pritožba nanaša.
The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsman that his complaint regarding the ‘EU Pillar’ was directed at the Commission.
Pritožnik je za tem obvestil Varuha, da je njegova pritožba v zvezi s ‘stebrom EU’ usmerjena na Komisijo.
In order to avoid complications, this le er was registered as a new complaint under the above-mentioned reference.
Da bi se izognili zapletom, je bilo to pismo registrirano kot nova pritožba pod zgoraj omenjenim sklicem.
In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju izjavila:
The ‘EU Pillar’ is an integral part of the United Nations Interim Administration mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), which was established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999.
‘Steber EU’ je sestavni del misije začasne uprave Združenih narodov na Kosovu (UNMIK), ustanovljene z resolucij o Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1244 z dne 10. junij a 1999.
UNMIK is headed by a Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN and consists of four components (“pillars”) led by different expert international entities.
UNMIK, ki ga vodi posebni predstavnik generalnega sekretarja ZN, je sestavljen iz štirih komponent (“stebrov”), ki jih vodij o različne strokovne mednarodne entitete.
The four pillars are:
Ti štirje stebri so:
Pillar I: Humanitarian Affairs, under the responsibility of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Steber I: humanitarne zadeve, pod pristojnostjo visokega komisarja ZN za begunce (UNHCR).
Pillar I was phased out at the end of June 2000 and is now replaced by an operation responsible for Justice and Police led by the United Nations;
Steber I je bil ukinjen s koncem junij a 2000 in ga sedaj nadomešča operacij a, pristojna za sodstvo in policijo, ki jo vodij o Združeni narodi;
Pillar II: Civil Administration, led by the United Nations;
Steber II: civilna uprava, ki jo vodij o Združeni narodi;
Pillar III: Democratisation and institution building, led by the OSCE;
Steber III: demokratizacija in oblikovanje institucij , ki ju vodi OVSE;
Pillar IV: Economic Reconstruction, recovery and development, led by the EU.
Steber IV: gospodarska obnova in razvoj, ki ju vodi EU.
Pillar IV is known as the ‘EU Pillar’.
Steber IV je znan tudi kot ‘steber EU’.
No observations were received from the complainant.
Pritožnik ni poslal nobenih pripomb.
EU Pillar’s alleged failure to provide contract and to pay invoice
Očitana opustitev sklenitve pogodbe in plačila računa s strani stebra EU
1.1 The complainant, a German consultant, alleges that the ‘EU Pillar’ failed to provide him with a contract and to pay the invoice he had sent to it.
1.1 Pritožnik, ki je nemški svetovalec, trdi, da je steber EU opustil sklenitev pogodbe z njim in plačilo poslanega računa.
He suggests that the European Commission should be held responsible for the EU Pillar’s behaviour.
Predlaga, da je za dejanja stebra EU odgovorna Evropska komisij a.
It adds that the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the UN is responsible for implementing the proposed activities of the EU Pillar through his administration of the Pillar’s operational budget which is funded by the Community.
Bearpark, namestnik posebnega predstavnika generalnega sekretarja ZN, sestavni del misije začasne uprave Združenih narodov na Kosovu (UNMIK), ustanovljene z resolucij o Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov št. 1244 z dne 10. junij a 1999.
The Commission points at the Grant Agreements between the European Commission and the EU Pillar of UNMIK according to which the EU Pillar shall assume sole liability towards third parties whereas the EU does not recognise any contractual link between itself and the EU Pillar’s partners and subcontractors.
Dodaja, da je namestnik posebnega predstavnika generalnega sekretarja ZN pristojen za izvrševanje predlaganih dejavnosti stebra EU z upravljanjem operativnega proračuna tega stebra, ki ga financira Skupnost.
On the basis of the above, the Commission takes the view that the contractual relationship between the complainant and the EU Pillar of UNMIK does not involve its services that are not responsible for implementing the EU Pillar’s activities.
Komisij a opozarja na sporazume o dotacijah med Evropsko komisij o in stebrom EU UNMIK, po katerih prevzema steber EU polno odgovornost do tretjih strank, EU pa ne priznava nobenih pogodbenih povezav med seboj in partnerji ter podizvajalci stebra EU.
1.3 The Ombudsman considers that in the light of the explanations provided by the Commission, the la er’s position appears to be reasonable.
Na podlagi tega je Komisij a mnenja, da pogodbeno razmerje med pritožnikom in stebrom EU UNMIK ne vključuje njenih dejavnosti, ki niso odgovorne za izvajanje dejavnosti stebra EU.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ugotavlja, da Evropska komisij a ni ravnala nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
TRAVELLING AND SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES IN RECRUITMENT COMPETITIONS
POTNI STROŠKI IN STROŠKI BIVANJA KANDIDATOV NA IZBIRNIH POSTOPKIH ZA ZAPOSLITEV
Decision on complaint 1358/2002/IP against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1358/2002/IP zoper Evropsko komisij o
According to the complainant, these candidates are disadvantaged compared to those who live close to the place of competitions, which is normally Brussels.
Po navedbah pritožnice so ti kandidati prikrajšani v primerjavi s tistimi, ki živijo blizu kraja razpisa, ki je ponavadi Bruselj.
She claimed that the Commission should adopt new rules for the reimbursement of travel expenses in order to guarantee a concrete equality of opportunities to potential candidates in open competitions.
Trdi, da bi morala Komisij a sprejeti nova pravila za povračilo potnih stroškov, ki bi zagotavljala dejansko enakost možnosti potencialnih kandidatov na javnih razpisih.
The European Commission’s opinion
Mnenje Evropske komisij e
The Commission recalled that the complainant participated in open competition COM/A/9/01, to constitute a reserve list of administrators in the field of economics and statistics.
Komisij a je opomnila, da je pritožnica sodelovala na javnem razpisu COM/A/9/01 za sestavo rezervnega seznama uradnikov na področju ekonomike in statistike.
A er the preselection tests, the complainant was among the 500 best candidates.
Na predizbirnih testih je bila pritožnica uvrščena med 500 najboljših kandidatov.
According to point I.5 of the notice of competition, she was asked to complete the application form, which was sent to her by post.
V skladu s točko 15 javnega razpisa je bila naprošena, naj izpolni prijavnico, ki jo je prejela po pošti.
The Selection Board then examined the complainant’s dossier and informed her that she was admi ed to the wri en tests, foreseen on 19 July 2002.
Izbirna komisij a je pregledala spis pritožnice in jo obvestila, da lahko opravlja pisne teste, predvidene za 19. julij 2002.
The complainant did not take part in these tests.
Pritožnica teh testov ni opravljala.
As regards the reimbursement of travel expenses, the relevant rules are laid down in conclusion 211/95 that was adopted by the Heads of administration at interinstitutional level on 28 March 1996 and that entered into force on 1 April 1996.
Kar se tiče povračila potnih stroškov, so zadevni predpisi določeni v Sklepu 211/95, ki so ga sprejeli vodje uprav na medinstitucionalni ravni dne 28. marca 1996 in je začel veljati 1. aprila 1996.
By an internal directive of 15 April 1996, the European Commission implemented conclusion 211/95.
Evropska komisij a je Sklep 211/95 uvedla z notranjo direktivo dne 15. aprila 1996.
Both texts establish the general principles for contributions towards travelling and subsistence expenses for external candidates admi ed to participate in the wri en tests of a recruitment competition.
Obe besedili določata okvirna načela za prispevke k potnim stroškom in stroškom bivanja zunanjih kandidatov, sprejetih k pisnim testom izbirnega postopka za zaposlitev.
In case the distance between the place of residence of the candidate and the place of the competition is more than 300 kilometres, candidates will receive a flat-rate contribution calculated on the basis of such distance.
Če je kraj bivanja kandidata za več kot 300 km oddaljen od kraja razpisa, kandidat prejme pavšalni dodatek na podlagi razdalje.
In case the distance is equal or superior to 1500 kilometres, candidates will receive 180 €.
Če je razdalja enaka ali večja od 1500 km, prejme kandidat 180 €.
At this stage of the competition, the financial participation is only a flat-rate contribution and not a full reimbursement which is only foreseen for candidates admi ed to the oral test.
Na tej stopnji razpisa je povračilo stroškov zgolj pavšalna vsota in ne povrnitev vseh stroškov, kar je predvideno le za kandidate, ki so sprejeti na ustne teste.
All this information had been contained in the le er sent to the complainant with the invitation to the wri en tests. She was therefore informed thereof.
Pisno vabilo na pisne teste, poslano pritožnici, je vsebovalo vse te informacije, zatorej je bila o njih obveščena.
The complainant’s observations
Pripombe pritožnice
In her observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant stressed that the Commission had not commented on the allegation that the rules on the reimbursement to candidates in open competitions discriminate against candidates from distant Member States and favour those who live close to the place of competitions, which is normally Brussels.
V pripombah na mnenje Komisij e je pritožnica poudarila, da se Komisij a ni opredelila glede trditve, da pravila o povračilu stroškov kandidatom na javnih razpisih zapostavljajo kandidate iz bolj oddaljenih držav članic in dajejo prednost kandidatom, ki živijo blizu kraja razpisov, ki so ponavadi v Bruslju.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
Dne 29. januarja 2003 je Varuh tako pisal Komisij i in jo pozval, naj odgovori na pripombo pritožnice, da se Komisij a ni opredelila o njeni trditvi, da sporni predpisi zapostavljajo kandidate iz oddaljenejših držav članic.
The Commission’s second opinion
Drugo mnenje Komisij e
The institution recalled that the financial contribution given to candidates admi ed to the wri en tests of an open competition for their travel expenses is calculated on the basis of the distance between the place of residence of the candidate and the place of the competition, as long as such a distance is at least 300 kilometres.
Komisij a je opozorila, da je finančni prispevek za potne stroške kandidatov, sprejetih na pisne teste javnih razpisov, izračunan na podlagi razdalje med krajem bivanja kandidata in krajem razpisa, če je ta razdalja večja od 300 km.
The contribution is going up according to the distance (for a distance between 301 and 800 kilometres candidates receive 60 €; when it is between 801 and 1500 kilometres they receive 120 € and when the distance is higher than 1500 kilometres candidates receive 180 €).
Ta prispevek se veča glede na razdaljo (za razdaljo med 301 in 800 km kandidat prejme 60 €, za razdaljo med 801 in 1500 km 120 € in za razdaljo več kot 1500 km 180 €).
These are objective criteria applied to all candidates in an identical way and on the sole basis of the distance, without taking into account any other changeable parameter like the cost of living in the different countries or the transport connections between the place of residence of each candidate and the place of the competition.
To so objektivna merila, enako veljavna za vse kandidate in temeljijo zgolj na razdalji, brez upoštevanja katere koli druge spremenljivke, kot so življenjski stroški v različnih državah ali potni stroški med krajem bivanja vsakega kandidata in krajem razpisa.
On this basis, the Commission rejected the complainant’s allegation regarding the discriminatory nature of these rules.
Na tej podlagi je Komisij a zavrnila trditev pritožnice o nepravičnosti teh predpisov.
Travelling and subsistence expenses of candidates in recruitment competitions
Potni stroški in stroški bivanja kandidatov na izbirnih postopkih za zaposlitev
1.1 The complainant, who had participated in competition COM/A/9/01, alleged that the rules adopted by the Commission for the reimbursement of travel expenses for candidates in open competitions discriminate against candidates from distant Member States.
1.1 Pritožnica, ki je sodelovala na izbirnem postopku COM/A/9/01, je izjavila, da predpisi Komisij e o povračilu potnih stroškov kandidatom na javnih razpisih zapostavljajo kandidate iz bolj oddaljenih držav članic.
According to the complainant, these candidates are disadvantaged compared to those who live close to the place of competitions, which is normally Brussels.
Pritožnica pravi, da so ti kandidati prikrajšani v primerjavi s tistimi, ki živijo blizu kraja razpisa, ki je ponavadi Bruselj.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission explained that the relevant rules are laid down in conclusion 211/95 that was adopted by the Heads of administration at interinstitutional level on 28 March 1996 and that entered into force on 1 April 1996.
1.2 V svojem mnenju je Komisij a pojasnila, da so zadevni predpisi določeni v Sklepu 211/95, ki so ga sprejeli vodje uprav na medinstitucionalni ravni 28. marca 1996 in ki je začel veljati 1. aprila 1996.
By an internal directive of 15 April 1996, the European Commission implemented conclusion 211/95.
Evropska komisij a je Sklep 211/95 uvedla z notranjo direktivi dne 15. aprila 1996.
Both texts establish the general principles for contributions towards travelling and subsistence expenses for external candidates admi ed to participate in the wri en tests of a recruitment competition.
Obe besedili določata splošna načela za prispevke k potnim stroškom in stroškom bivanja zunanjih kandidatov, sprejetih k pisnim testom izbirnega postopka za zaposlitev.
Decisions following an inquiry subsistence expenses.
Sklepi preiskav je povračilo stroškov zgolj pavšalna vsota in ne povrnitev vseh stroškov.
However, if the Commission decides to contribute to the payment of such expenses, it has to ensure respect for the principle of equal treatment.
Pritožnica bi se morala zavedati teh dejstev, saj je pisno vabilo na pisne teste, ki ga je prejela, te informacij e vsebovalo.
The criteria adopted by the Commission to contribute to the payment of candidates’ travelling and subsistence expenses appear to be applied to all candidates in the same way and based on the objective parameter of the distance between their place of residence and the place of the examination.
1.4 Varuh ne pozna nobenega pravnega pravila ali določila zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki bi od Komisij e zahtevalo povrnitev potnih stroškov in stroškov bivanja kandidatom na javnih razpisih. Če pa se Komisij a odloči finančno prispevati za plačilo teh stroškov, mora vse obravnavati enako.
The system chosen by the Commission for the relevant financial contribution appears to be reasonable and not discriminatory against any of the candidates.
Sistem Komisij e za zadevne finančne prispevke je očitno razumen in ne diskriminira nobenega od kandidatov.
1.5 On the basis of the above, there appeared to be no maladministration by the Commission as regards this aspect of the case.
1.5 Na podlagi tega Varuh ugotavlja, da Komisij a glede očitka tega dela pritožbe, ni ravnala nepravilno.
The complainant’s claim
Zahteva pritožnice
2.1 The complainant claimed that the Commission should adopt new rules for the reimbursement of travel expenses in order to guarantee a concrete equality of opportunities to potential candidates in open competitions.
2.1 Pritožnica trdi, da bi morala Komisij a sprejeti nova pravila za povračilo potnih stroškov, ki bi zagotavljala dejansko enakost možnosti potencialnih kandidatov na javnih razpisih.
2.2 In view of the conclusions at point 1.5 of the present decision, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to deal with this point.
Na podlagi zaključkov v točki 1.5 tega sklepa Varuh te točke ni obravnaval.
ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION IN GRADING OF NUCLEAR INSPECTOR
ZATRJEVANJE DISKRIMINACIJ E PRI OCENI JEDRSKEGA INŠPEKTORJA
Decision on complaint 1365/2002/OV (Confidential) against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1365/2002/OV (zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisij o