natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In his note of 22 July 2002, he had referred to the fact that the inquiry of 7 June 2002 had not yet been answered.
V njegovem sporočilu 22. julij a 2002 je opozoril na dejstvo, da povpraševanje z dne 7. junij a 2002 še ni dobilo odgovora.
At the time, the Commission had not denied this.
Komisij a takrat tega ni zanikala.
Regarding the inquiry of 16 June 2002, he had assumed that the relevant questions would be passed on to Mr M.
V zvezi s povpraševanjem z dne 16. junij a 2002 je domneval, da bodo ustrezna vprašanja posredovana g. M.
The inquiry of 2 June 2002 had indeed been replied to.
Povpraševanje z dne 2. junij a 2002 je res bilo odgovorjeno.
However, the reply had le open most of the questions.
Vendar pa je odgovor pustil odprt večji del vprašanja.
He had pointed this out in his messages of 7 June 2002 and 22 July 2002.
Na to je opozoril v svojem sporočilu 7. junij a 2002 in 22. julij a 2002.
The complainant concluded by claiming that wri en replies should be sent to the relevant questions.
Pritožnik je zaključil s trditvijo, da bi na ustrezna vprašanja morali slediti pisni odgovori.
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
PRIZADEVANJA EVROPSKEGA VARUHA ZA SPORAZUMNO REŠITEV
A er careful consideration of the opinions and observations, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission had responded adequately to all the complainant’s allegations.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenj in pripomb Varuh ni bil zadovoljen z odgovorom Komisij e na pritožnikove trditve.
Decisions following an inquiry
Predlog sporazumne rešitve
Article 3 (5) of the Statute of the Ombudsman55 directs the Ombudsman to seek, as far as possible, a solution with the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.
Člen 3(5) Statuta Evropskega varuha55določa, da varuh, kolikor je mogoče, skupaj z zadevno institucij o poišče rešitev, ki bi odpravila nepravilnosti in zadovoljivo ugodila pritožbi.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion was that the Commission’s refusal to answer the complainant’s questions, in so far as the la er requested the Commission to provide information, could be an instance of maladministration.
Varuh je začasno zaključil, da bi dejstvo, da Komisij a ni odgovorila na pritožnikova vprašanja, kar s tiče posredovanja informacij , lahko pomenilo nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman therefore made the following proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission:
Varuh je tako Komisij i predlagal naslednjo sporazumno rešitev:
The European Commission should consider providing the information requested by the complainant, unless there are valid reasons for not doing so.
Evropska Komisij a naj posreduje informacije, ki jih zahteva pritožnik, razen če obstajajo tehtni razlogi za to, da jih ne posreduje.
This proposal was based on the following considerations:
Ta predlog je temeljil na naslednji presoji:
1 On the basis of the complainant’s comments and the Commission’s opinions, the Ombudsman assumes that the complainant still wishes to receive a reply to questions 6 to 9 of the inquiry of 12 March 2002, questions 1 to 8 and 10 of the inquiry of 26 March 2002, questions 1 to 4 of the inquiry of 28 March 2002, questions 2 to 8 of the inquiry of 2 June 2002, to the inquiry of 7 June 2002 and to the inquiry (concerning the submission of a report) of 22 July 2002.
1 Na podlagi pripomb pritožnika in mnenj Komisij e Varuh domneva, da pritožnik še vedno želi prejeti odgovor na vprašanja 6 do 9 povpraševanja z dne 12. marca 2002, na vprašanja 1 do 8 in 10 povpraševanja z dne 26. marca 2002, vprašanja 1 do 4 povpraševanja z dne 28. marca 2002, vprašanja 2 do 8 povpraševanja z dne 2. junij a 2002 ter na povpraševanji z dne 7. junij a 2002 in 22. julij a 2002 (o predložitvi poročila).
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, OJ 1994 L 113/15.
Odločitev Evropskega parlamenta 94/262 z dne 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog varuha človekovih pravic, OJ 1994 L 113/15.
Decisions following an inquiry consideration.
Varuh meni, da bo le transparentna in ustrežljiva uprava zadostila temu predpisu.
To cite only one example in addition to those already mentioned in point 1.5 above, question 8 of the inquiry of 2 June 2002 asks the Commission to specify how many persons are authorised to handle the Sincom system and what their names are.
V tej zvezi je nadalje potrebno upoštevati ključno vlogo medijev pri informiranju državljanov o delu EU in na ta način dopuščati državljanom, da ocenjujejo institucij e in organe EU.
It has not been explained how answering such questions could prejudice the proper conduct of the investigation carried out by OLAF.
Pritožnik sprejema dejstvo, da je Komisij a svobodna pri sprejemanju stališč o določenih vprašanjih, kako in kdaj jih zavzema.
The Ombudsman accepts that there may be cases where the administration cannot provide more detailed reasoning because doing so would already jeopardise the aim which justifies the refusal of information.
Komisij a trdi, da mnoga vprašanja niso bila naravnost usmerjena k obstoječim informacijam, ampak so od nje zahtevala, da v svojem odgovoru o posameznih vprašanjih zavzame uradno stališče.
It does not appear, however, that this would be the case with all the requests for information submi ed by the complainant in the present case.
Pregled dokumentacije, ki jo je predložil pritožnik, kaže, da ta argument ni brez vrednosti.
6 In his observations on the Commission’s second opinion, the complainant accepted that there may be other reasons that could justify a refusal to provide information.
4 Če državljan prosi za informacijo, za katero javna služba meni, da mu je ne more dati, je njeno primerno ravnanje, da prosilca obvesti o razlogih, zakaj mu informacij , ki jih je zahteval, ne more posredovati.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission has not relied on any other reasons in order to justify its refusal to provide the information that had been requested.
V tem primeru se je Komisij a omejila z izjavo, da ustreznih informacij ne more posredovati, ker se tičejo zadeve, ki jo preiskuje OLAF.
In its reply, the Commission stated that it appreciated the proposal for a friendly solution.
Ni pa prepričan, da je Komisij a dokazala, da je bila upravičena zavrniti posredovanje vseh zahtevanih informacijpritožnika na tej osnovi.
The Commission noted that it had reviewed all the questions that had been addressed to it by the complainant and that a complete list of the Commission’s replies thereto was enclosed.
Če se ponazori le en dodaten primer tistim že omenjenim v točki 1.5 zgoraj, vprašanje 8 povpraševanja z dne 2. junij a 2002 Komisij o prosi, naj navede koliko oseb se lahko ukvarja s sistemom Sincom in kdo so.
The complainant stressed that this had seriously impeded his work as a journalist.
V svojem odgovoru je Komisij a navedla, da ceni predlog za sporazumno rešitev. Zapisala je tudi, da je pregledala vsa vprašanja, ki jih je zastavil pritožnik, in da je priložen dokončan seznam odgovorov Komisije. e.
The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to comment on the complainant’s view that some questions had still not been answered.
Varuh je prosil Komisij o za mnenje na pritožnikovi trditvi, da nekatera vprašanja še vedno niso bila odgovorjena.
The Commission’s reply
LETNO POROČILO 2003
In reply to the Ombudsman’s le er, the Commission submi ed an amended list of its replies to the complainant’s questions.
V odgovoru na pismo Evropskega varuha, je Komisij a predložila dopolnjen seznam svojih odgovorov na pritožnikova vprašanja.
No wri en observations on this reply were received from the complainant.
Pritožnik ni posredoval pisnih pripomb na ta odgovor.
In a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman’s offi ce on 17 November 2003, the complainant stressed that he found it regre able that he had had to turn to the Ombudsman in order to obtain the relevant information.
V telefonskem pogovoru z uradom Evropskega varuha 17. novembra 2003 je pritožnik poudaril, da obžaluje, da se je za potrebne informacij e moral obrniti na Varuha.
The complainant confirmed, however, that a friendly solution had been brought about.
Potrdil je, da je prišlo do sporazumne rešitve.
Failure to provide information requested by the complainant
Opustitev posredovanja informacij, ki jih je zahteval pritožnik
1.1 The complainant, the Brussels correspondent of the “Stern”, a German weekly, alleged that the Commission had refused to provide information that he had requested on a number of occasions on the grounds that the relevant questions concerned ongoing investigations by OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce.
1.1 Pritožnik, ki je dopisnik nemškega tedenskega časopisa “Stern” v Bruslju, je navedel, da Komisij a ni hotela posredovati informacij , ki jih je ob več priložnostih zahteval zato, ker relevantna vprašanja zadevajo preiskave OLAF, Evropskega urada za boj proti prevaram.
In his observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant further alleged that some inquiries had not been answered at all.
V svojih pripombah na mnenje Komisij e je pritožnik nadalje navedel, da na nekatera poizvedovanja sploh ni dobil odgovora.
Decisions following an inquiry with the media, had been scrupulous in answering within the deadline stipulated, that is to say within fi een working days of the receipt of inquiries.
1.2 Komisij a je menila, da je ravnala v skladu s kodeksom dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev in da je bila njena služba za tisk in komuniciranje, ki je odgovorna za stike z mediji, zelo natančna pri posredovanju odgovorov v dogovorjenem roku, to je 15 delovnih dni od prejema vloge za poizvedbo. Priznala pa je, da na sporočilo pritožnika, ki ga je poslal 5. aprila 2002, ni odgovorila, za kar se je tudi opravičila.
The Commission further provided the complainant with a list of contracts it had entered into with a company called Eurogramme that the complainant had requested.
Komisij a je pritožnika nadalje seznanila s seznamom pogodb, ki jih je sklenila s podjetjem Eurogramme, ki jih je pritožnik zahteval.
1.3 The Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the Commission’s refusal to answer the complainant’s questions, in so far as the la er requested the Commission to provide information, could be an instance of maladministration.
1.3 Varuh je prišel do zaključka, da bi dejstvo, da Komisij a ni odgovorila na pritožnikova vprašanja kolikor zadeva posredovanje informacij , lahko pomenilo nepravilnost.
On 21 May 2003, he therefore submi ed a proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission according to which the la er should consider providing the information requested by the complainant, unless there were valid reasons for not doing so.
Zato je 21. maja 2003 pri Komisij i vložil predlog za sporazumno rešitev, na podlagi katere bi Komisij a posredovala informacije, ki jih zahteva pritožnik, razen če obstajajo tehtni razlogi za to, da jih ne posreduje.
1.4 In its reply to this proposal and in its reply to a subsequent request for further information, the Commission submi ed an amended list of its replies to the complainant’s questions.
1.4 V svojem odgovoru na predlog in v odgovoru na naknadno zahtevo po nadaljnjih informacijah je Komisij a predložila popravljen seznam odgovorov na pritožnikova vprašanja.
1.5 In a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman’s offi ce on 17 November 2003, the complainant stressed that he found it regre able that he had had to turn to the Ombudsman in order to obtain the relevant information.
1.5 V telefonskem pogovoru z uradom Evropskega varuha 17. novembra 2003 je pritožnik poudaril, da obžaluje, da se je za pridobitev potrebnih informacij e moral obrniti na Varuha.
Following the Ombudsman’s initiative, it appears that a friendly solution to the complaint has been agreed between the Commission and the complainant.
Na podlagi pobude Varuha je razvidno, da sta se pritožnik in Komisij a dogovorila za sporazumno rešitev, zato Varuh primer zaključuje.
CASES CLOSED WITH A CRITICAL REMARK BY THEOMBUDSMAN
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUČENIS KRITIČNOPRIPOMBOEVROPSKEGA VARUHA
3.4.1 The European Parliament
3.4.1 Evropski parlament
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DUTY TO BE COURTEOUS
NEIZPOLNJEVANJE ZAHTEVE PO VLJUDNEM OBNAŠANJU
Decision on complaint 1565/2002/GG against the European Parliament
Sklep o pritožbi 1565/2002/GG zoper Evropski Parlament
At the beginning of 2002, the European Parliament published a call for tenders (CRE-0203-EL-EP) for the translation of verbatim reports of the European Parliament’s sessions (“CRE”) into Greek.
Evropski parlament je na začetku leta 2002 objavil javni razpis (CRE-0203-EL-EP) za prevod zbirke govorov poslancev Evropskega parlamenta (“CRE”) v grščino.
Corresponding calls for tenders were also published with regard to the ten other official languages.
Prav tako so bili objavljeni javni razpisi za deset ostalih uradnih jezikov.
Eight candidates responded to this call.
Na ta javni razpis je odgovorilo osem kandidatov.
Five of these were members of the complainant, an association of Greek translation companies.
Pet od njih je bilo članov združenja grških prevajalskih družb, ki je pritožnik.
Some members of the complainant thereupon wrote to Parliament in order to ask for clarifications.
Ponudniki so bili 2. julij a 2002 obveščeni po elektronski pošti, ki jo je poslala uradnica EP, ga.
On 3 July 2002, the following email reply was sent in the name of Parliament’s Translation Planning
T., da je bil javni razpis preklican “zaradi tehničnih razlogov” in bo ponovno objavljen.
Division: “We are not going to elaborate on the reasons for cancellation in so far as we do not have to.”
V imenu oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta je bil po elektronski pošti 3. julij a 2002 poslan naslednji odgovor: “Ne mislimo razpravljati o razlogih za preklic, ker nam to ni potrebno.”
She further noted that the call for tenders for the translation of verbatim reports of the European Parliament’s sessions into German (CRE-0202-DE-EP) had been cancelled due to discrepancies in the award criteria between the notice published in the Official Journal and the tender specifications posted on the EP’s website.
Nadalje je menila, da je bil javni razpis za prevod zbirke govorov poslancev Evropskega parlamenta v nemščino (CRE-0202-DE-EP) preklican zaradi protislovij med kriteriji za dodelitev v oglasu, objavljenim v Uradnem listu ter razpisnimi pogoji, objavljenimi na spletni strani EP.
Finally, Mrs T. pointed out that call for tenders CRE-0203-EL-EP had been cancelled “due to technical problems”.
Gospa T. je slednjič opozorila, da je bil javni razpis CRE-0203-EL-EP preklican “zaradi tehničnih razlogov”.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in early September 2002, the complainant took the view that the cancellation of the call for tenders was a serious ma er.
V pritožbi, ki jo je pri Varuhu vložil zgodaj septembra 2002, je pritožnik zavzel stališče, da je preklic javnega razpisa resna zadeva.
It pointed out that bidders had spent a considerable number of man-hours in order to prepare their applications.
Poudaril je, da so ponudniki namenili veliko število delovnih ur pripravi prošenj.
The complainant further pointed out that it would be highly important to know when the call for tenders had been cancelled, i.e. before or a er the assessment of the bids, given that in the la er case the bidders’ offering prices would already be known to a number of people.
Po njegovem mnenju je zelo pomembno vedeti, kdaj je bil javni razpis preklican, namreč pred ali po oceni ponudb, ob upoštevanju dejstva, da bi bile v slednjem primeru velikemu številu ljudi cene, ki so jih postavili ponudniki, že znane. To bi posledično pomenilo, da se ni spoštovalo njihove zaupnosti, njihova ponudba pa je bila izpostavljena nevarnosti spodbijanja. anja.
The complainant therefore took the view that Parliament should inform it and all participants in the tender of the reasons for the cancellation and answer all questions arising from it.
Pritožnik zato meni, da bi moral Parlament njega in vse ostale udeležence v javnem razpisu obvestiti o razlogih za odpoved in odgovoriti na vsa vprašanja, ki iz tega izhajajo.
It further took the view that the tone of the answer from the head of the Translation Planning Division at the EP had been inappropriate and had created an impression of arrogant behaviour.
Nadalje pritožnik meni, da je bil način odgovora vodje oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Evropskega parlamenta neprimeren in je deloval arogantno.
The complainant thus in substance made the following allegations:
Pritožnik je tako v bistvu podal naslednje trditve:
The EP had failed to explain the reasons for cancelling the said call for tenders.
Evropski parlament ni pojasnil vzrokov za preklic omenjenega javnega razpisa.
The tone of the email from the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division of 3 July 2002 had been inappropriate and had created an impression of arrogant behaviour.
Ton odgovora, ki ga je vodja oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Evropskega parlamenta 3. julij a 2002 posredoval po elektronski pošti, je bil neprimeren in je deloval arogantno.
In its opinion, the European Parliament made the following comments:
Evropski parlament je v svojem mnenju izjavil:
On 2 July 2002, bidders for the relevant call for tenders had been erroneously informed by email that the call for tenders had been cancelled for technical reasons.
Ponudniki na zadevnem javnem razpisu so bili 2. julij a 2002 po elektronski pošti napačno obveščeni, da je bil javni razpis preklican zaradi tehničnih razlogov.
This email had not been sent by one of the officials responsible for the call for tenders but by a member of their staff who had acted somewhat zealously.
Elektronske pošte ni poslal uradnik, odgovoren za javne razpise, temveč malce preveč vnet član osebja, ki je deloval svojevoljno.
In fact, in the meantime, the consultation of the Legal Service had resulted in the decision that it was not necessary to cancel the call for tenders.
V vmesnem času je bila, po posvetovanju s pravno službo, celo sprejeta odločitev, da javnega razpisa ni treba preklicati.
Bidders had never officially been informed of the cancellation and no notice indicating cancellation had been published.
Ponudniki niso bili nikoli uradno obveščeni o preklicu, prav tako pa ni bilo objavljeno nobeno obvestilo o preklicu.
The consultation of the Legal Service had been ongoing when the email requesting the reasons for cancellation had been sent.
V času, ko je bilo poslano elektronsko sporočilo z zahtevo po pojasnitvi razlogov za preklic, so posvetovanja s pravno službo še potekala.
The head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division had given instructions that no information was to be given.
Vodja oddelka za načrtovanja prevajanja Parlamenta je dal navodilo, naj se ne daje nobenih informacij .
Subsequently, on publication of the award notice, an official apology for the erroneous email of 2 July 2002 had been sent to all bidders by the official responsible.
Po objavi obvestila o oddaji, je pristojni uradnik poslal vsem ponudnikom uradno opravičilo za samovoljno elektronsko pošto z dne 2. julij a 2002.
In so far as the tone of the email sent on 3 July 2002 was concerned, the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division had been at the Strasbourg plenary session when a member of his staff had asked him how to reply to the email that had been received.
Kar zadeva ton elektronske pošte, poslane 3. julij a 2002, je bil vodja oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta na plenarnem zasedanju v Strasbourgu, ko ga je član osebja vprašal, kako naj odgovori na prejeto elektronsko pošto.
The question had been put to him at 12.15 p.m., a particularly busy time for him, since the deadline for tabling urgent resolutions was 1 p.m.
Vprašanje mu je bilo postavljeno ob 12.15, ob zanj zelo neugodnem času, ker je bil rok za predložitev nujnih resolucij ob 13.00.
The instructions of the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division had therefore necessarily been rather terse.
Navodila vodje oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta so bila zato bolj kratka.
The resulting email had not been dra ed by himself but had been an interpretation of his instructions dra ed in English by a non-native speaker.
Poslane elektronske pošte ni napisal sam, temveč je bila to interpretacija njegovih navodil, napisal pa jo je nekdo, katerega materni jezik ni angleščina.
There had been no intention to off end or to appear arrogant.
Njen namen nikakor ni bil žaliti oziroma delovati arogantno.
The EP enclosed a copy of an email of 26 September 2002 in which bidders for the relevant call for tenders were informed that the contract award notice had been published on 13 September 2002 and which conveyed the EP’s apologies for any inconvenience the erroneous email sent on 2 July 2002 could have caused.
EP je priložil kopij o elektronske pošte z dne 26. septembra 2002, v kateri so bili ponudniki na zadevnem javnem razpisu obveščeni, da je bilo Sporočilo o oddaji naročila objavljeno 13. septembra 2002, v katerem se je EP tudi opravičil za morebitne neprijetnosti, ki jih je povzročila elektronska pošta z dne 2. julij a 2002.
In its observations, the complainant expressed the view that it was unacceptable for an EU service to “erroneously inform” citizens.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik izrazil stališče, da je za službo EU nesprejemljivo, da je državljane “napačno obvestila”.
The complainant added that the member of staff that according to Parliament had not been one of the “officials responsible” had been the very person that had always informed participants about ma ers concerning the call for tenders.
Dodal je, da je bil član osebja, ki naj po navedbah Parlamenta ne bi bil eden od “odgovornih uradnikov”, ista oseba, ki je udeležence vedno obveščala o zadevah v zvezi z javnim razpisom.
It further considered it quite extraordinary that the instructions given by the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division had been misinterpreted and that an EU service responsible for translations was not able to ensure the linguistic quality of wri en answers sent to bidders.
Nadalje je menil, da je zelo nenavadno, da so bila navodila, ki jih je dal vodja oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta, napačno interpretirana in da služba EU, pristojna za prevajanje ni mogla zagotoviti jezikovne kakovosti pisnih odgovorov, poslanih ponudnikom.
The complainant noted that its criticism regarding the tone of the email of 2 July 2002 had not been directed at the head of Parliament’s Translation Planning Division personally.
Pritožnik meni, da njegova kritika zaradi tona v elektronski pošti z dne 2. julij a 2002 ni bila usmerjena na vodjo oddelka za načrtovanje prevajanja Parlamenta osebno.
It pointed out that other le ers with a similar tone had been sent by the la er’s staff.
Poudaril je, da je pisma v podobnem tonu njegovo osebje poslalo tudi ostalim.
The complainant stressed that it would like an assurance from Parliament that it would be more cautious in the future when dealing with such sensitive ma ers and when communicating with external collaborators on which it counted.
Pritožnik je poudaril, da želi od Parlamenta zagotovitev, da bodo v prihodnosti bolj pazljivi ob obravnavanju tako občutljivih zadev in v komuniciranju z zunanjimi sodelavci, ki jih potrebuje.
The complainant finally noted that it wished to be informed about the nature of the “technical” problem that had occurred and the relevant opinion of the Legal Service.
Slednjič je pritožnik poudaril, da želi biti obveščen o naravi “tehnične” težave, ki je nastala in o ustreznem mnenju pravne službe.
It pointed out that one of its members that had been excluded from the said tender had asked to be informed about the reasons for exclusion but had not yet received the answer that the Legal Service had promised.
Poudaril je, da je eden od njegovih članov, ki je bil prav tako izključen iz omenjenega razpisa, vprašal po razlogih za izključitev, vendar še ni prejel obljubljenega odgovora pravne službe.
In the complainant’s view, this delay raised doubts about the transparency of tender procedures.
Po mnenju pritožnika zamuda vzbuja dvom v transparentnost javnih razpisov.