natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whilst the technical aspects of the final report seemed satisfactory, its financial section could not be approved by the Commission services as a result of the lack of justifying documents.
Medtem ko so se tehnični vidiki končnega poročila zdeli zadovoljivi, pa njenega finančnega dela zaradi pomanjkanja ustreznih dokumentov službe Komisij e niso mogle priznati.
On 27 March 2002, the Commission wrote to Professor H. and requested him to submit the final report, so that all the Community assistance could be paid.
27. marca 2002 je Komisij a pisno prosila profesorja H. naj predloži končno poročilo, da se lahko izplača vsa podpora Skupnosti.
In its le er, the Commission suggested that the contractor inform all his subcontractors of the state of play.
V svojem pismu je Komisij a predlagala, da izvajalec o tem obvesti vse podizvajalce.
On 7 June 2002, the Commission received a request from COGAM for the payment of its outstanding fees.
7. junij a 2002 je Komisij a prejela zahtevo COGAM-a za plačilo neporavnanih obveznosti.
It emerged from that request that the coordinator of the project had not explained the situation to all its sub-contractors, as the Commission had requested.
Iz te zahteve izhaja, da koordinator projekta ni pojasnil situacije vsem podizvajalcem, kot je to zahtevala Komisij a.
On 14 November 2002, the Commission received the final report from the Eberhard Karls Universität.
14. novembra 2002 je Komisij a prejela končno poročilo Univerze Eberharda Karla.
On 20 December 2002, the institution proceeded to make the final payment to the contractor for an amount of 59.859,30 €.
20. decembra 2002 je institucij a izvedla končno plačilo izvajalcu v višini 59.859,30 €.
On 5 May 2003, the Ombudsman received the complainant’s observations.
5. maja 2003 je Varuh prejel pripombe pritožnika.
As a result, the Eberhard Karls Universität had proceeded to pay COGAM its contribution to the project for an amount of 8200 €.
Tako je Univerza Eberharda Karla COGAM-u za njegov prispevek k projektu izplačala 8200 €.
The complainant concluded by expressing COGAM’s gratitude to the Ombudsman for his assistance in finding a solution to the problem.
Pritožnik je izrazil hvaležnost COGAM-a Evropskemu varuhu za njegovo pomoč pri iskanju rešitve problema.
PAYMENT OF AMOUNT DUE UNDER CONTRACT
PLAČILO POGODBENEGA ZNESKA
Decision on complaint 205/2003/IJH against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 205/2003/IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant is Managing Director of a company WWP Ltd.
Pritožnik je generalni direktor podjetja WWP Ltd.
The complaint is against the Commission, DG Agriculture.
Pritožba je zoper Komisijo, generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo. stvo.
In summary, the relevant facts according to the complainant are as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
Between January 1998 and December 2001, WWP Ltd. produced a monthly television programme called “CONTACT Europe”.
Med januarjem 1998 in decembrom 2001 je WWP Ltd. pripravljal mesečni televizijski program, ki se je imenoval “Contact Europe”.
Each edition had four stories, which were sponsored by Directorates General of the Commission under specific contracts, paid for by Member States, or co-funded.
Vsaka oddaja je vsebovala štiri zgodbe, ki so jih s posebnimi pogodbami podpirali generalni direktorati Komisije, plačale države članice ali so bili sofinancirani.
In April 2000, WWP Ltd. delivered a story about organic agriculture.
Aprila 2000 je WWP Ltd. pripravil zgodbo o ekološkem kmetovanju.
The budget was € 25 036, funded half by DG Agriculture and half by the UK Foreign Offi ce.
Prispevek je stal 25.036 €, polovico je financiral kmetijski generalni direktorat, drugo polovico pa ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve Velike Britanije.
The UK Foreign Offi ce paid its half.
Ministrstvo za zunanje zadeve VB je svojo polovico plačalo.
However, as was o en the case, the Commission was very slow in ge ing the specific contract out.
Kot se večkrat dogaja, je bila Komisij a zelo počasna v izdajanju posamezne pogodbe.
In this case, the contract was not issued until June 2000.
V tem primeru pogodba ni bila izdana do junij a 2000.
The Commission paid 60% of its half of the funding on signature.
Komisij a je ob podpisu plačala 60% svoje polovice.
WWP Ltd. subsequently invoiced the Commission for the final 40% and continued to press for payment throughout 2001 and into 2002.
WWP Ltd. je Komisij i naknadno fakturirala račun še za končnih 40% in je nadaljevala s terjatvami za plačilo skozi leto 2001 in v 2002.
On 8 February 2002, the Commission informed WWP Ltd. that an EU financial Regulation had been broken because WWP Ltd. had made the programme before the contract was issued, that the final 40% would not be paid and that WWP Ltd. would have to repay the 60% already paid.
8. februarja 2002 je Komisij a obvestila WWP Ltd., da je bila kršena finančna uredba EU, saj je WWP Ltd. program izvršil preden je bila izdana odločba, da končnih 40% ne bo plačanih in da mora WWP Ltd. vrniti 60% že plačanega.
WWP Ltd. met with DG Agriculture and requested a meeting with the relevant financial and legal services to discuss the Regulation in question.
WWP Ltd. se je srečal z generalnim direktoratom za kmetijstvo in zahteval sestanek z ustreznimi f i finančnimi in pravnimi službami, da bi razpravljal o tej uredbi.
However, despite numerous follow-up requests, WWP Ltd. has not been informed of the Regulation and its latest requests have received no response.
Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo stvo se je zavezal, da bo WWP Ltd. predložil kopij o uredbe in uredil sestanek, če bi se WWP Ltd. zdelo, da zadeva potrebuje nadaljnjo pojasnilo.
It had been made clear to WWP Ltd. from the pre-contract stage that it would need to produce work whilst the bureaucracy caught up with the reality of the deadlines.
Vendar pa navkljub številnim nadaljnjim zahtevam WWP Ltd. ni bil obveščen o uredbi in na svojo zadnjo zahtevo ni prejel odgovora.
On the basis of the above, the complainant argues that either a change in the applicable EU Regulation was applied retrospectively, or that the breach of the Regulation, if any, was by the responsible Commission officials. cials.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega pritožnik trdi, da je bodisi bila uveljavljena retroaktivna sprememba v veljavni uredbi EU bodisi so za kršitev uredbe, če je sploh šlo za kršitev, odgovorni uradniki Komisije. e.
The complainant claims that the Commission should reverse its position and pay the remaining 40% due with interest, as well as compensation for the complainant’s time spent on the ma er.
Pritožnik zahteva, da mora Komisij a spremeniti svoje stališče in plačati ostalih 40% dolgovanega zneska z obrestmi kot tudi odškodnino za pritožnikov čas, ki je bil porabljen za ta zaplet.
The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission for an opinion.
Varuh je posredoval pritožbo Komisij i, da oblikuje mnenje.
50, any authorities to provide, in accordance with Article 3 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman information which could be useful for the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint.
V luči pritožnikove izjave, da je Urad za zunanje zadeve in zadeve Commonwealtha Združenega kraljestva pravočasno plačal svojo polovico financiranja projekta, je Varuh prosil oblasti VB, da v skladu s členom 3 (3) Statuta Evropskega varuha50 posredujejovse informacije, ki bi lahko bile koristne za preiskavo Varuha v zvezi s pritožbo.
No reply was received.
Odgovora ni bilo.
In May 2003, the Commission stated that having reexamined the fi le in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission have decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible.
Maja 2003 je Komisij a navedla, da so se njene pristojne službe po ponovnem pregledu spisa v luči pritožbe Varuhu odločile plačati zahtevano vsoto in da bodo potrebni upravni postopki izvedeni čim prej.
In July 2003, the Commission sent a copy of a le er that it had addressed to the complainant confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.
Julij a 2003 je Komisij a poslala kopij o pisma, ki ga je naslovila pritožniku in ki potrjuje nakazilo sporne vsote na pritožnikov bančni račun.
The complainant confirmed to the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that he has received the amount due, with interest, and that he is satisfied.
Pritožnik je službam Evropskega varuha po telefonu potrdil, da je prejel dolgovani znesek in obresti in da je zadovoljen. Varuhu se je zahvalil za njegovo pomoč.
The complainant also sent a copy of his le er dated 2 September 2003 to the head of unit AII.1 of Commission DG Agriculture, thanking him for the payment of € 5 008 and the interest due of € 659,83 and stating that the ma er is se led.
Pritožnik je prav tako poslal kopij o svojega pisma z dne 2. septembra 2003, ki ga je poslal vodji enote AII.1 generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo Komisij e in kjer se zahvaljuje za nakazilo 5.008 € in obresti dolga 659,83 €. Izjavil je, da je zadeva rešena.
Failure to pay the amount due under a contract
Neplačilo pogodbenega zneska
1.1 The complainant is Managing Director of a company which produced a story that was cofunded by the Commission.
1.1 Pritožnik je generalni direktor podjetja, ki je pripravilo oddajo, sofinancirano s strani Komisije.
According to the complainant, Commission DG Agriculture informed the company that an EU financial Regulation had been broken because the company had made the story before the relevant contract was issued, that the final 40% would not be paid and that the company would have to repay the 60% already paid.
Generalni direktorat Komisij e je glede na pritožbo obvestil podjetje, da je bila kršena finančna uredba EU, saj je podjetje oddajo pripravilo preden je bila izdana ustrezna odločba, da končnih 40% ne bo plačanih in da mora podjetje vrniti 60% že plačanega.
1.2 The Commission’s opinion states that, having reexamined the fi le in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible.
1.2 Stališče Komisij e navaja, da so se njene pristojne službe po ponovnem pregledu spisa v luči pritožbe Evropskemu varuhu odločile plačati zahtevano vsoto in da bodo potrebni upravni postopki izvedeni čim prej.
The Commission subsequently sent a copy of a le er confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.
Komisij a je naknadno poslala kopij o pisma, ki potrjuje nakazilo sporne vsote na pritožnikov bančni račun.
“The Member States’ authorities shall be obliged to provide the Ombudsman, whenever he may so request, via the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the European Communities, with any information that may help to clarify instances of maladministration by Community institutions or bodies unless such information is covered by laws or regulations on secrecy or by provisions preventing its being communicated.
“Organi držav članic morajo varuhu človekovih pravic, kadar koli to zahteva, preko stalnih predstavništev držav članic v Evropskih skupnostih posredovati vse informacije, ki bi lahko pomagale pojasniti primere nepravilnosti v institucijah ali organih Skupnosti, razen če za omenjene informacij e veljajo zakoni ali predpisi o tajnosti ali določbe, ki preprečujejo njihovo posredovanje.
Nonetheless, in the la er case, the Member State concerned may allow the Ombudsman to have this information provided that he undertakes not to divulge it.”
Ne glede na to pa lahko v slednjem primeru zadevna država članica dovoli varuhu človekovih pravic, da take informacij e dobi pod pogojem, da se obveže, da jih ne bo širil.”
1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to se le the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
1.4 V luči zgoraj navedenega Evropski varuh meni, da je Komisij a v zvezi z reševanjem pritožbe primerno ukrepala in zadovoljila pritožnika.
ALLEGED FAILURE TO MAKE FINAL PAYMENT IN RESEARCH PROJECT
DOMNEVNA OPUSTITEV KONČNEGA PLAČILA V RAZISKOVALNEM PROJEKTU
Decision on complaint 1173/2003/(TN)IJH against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1173/2003/(TN)IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
In June 2003, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman on behalf of Stockholm University.
Junij a 2003 je Univerza v Stockholmu pri Evropskemu varuhu vložila pritožbo.
The complaint concerned the Commission’s alleged failure to make a final payment in a research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
Pritožba se nanaša na domnevno opustitev končnega plačila Komisij e v raziskovalnem projektu s številko pogodbe ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
Stockholm University was one of the participants in a research project, which was coordinated by the Italian company CHIRON and funded by the Commission.
Univerza v Stockholmu je bila ena od udeleženk v raziskovalnem projektu, ki ga je koordiniralo italijansko podjetje CHIRON in financirala Komisij a.
At the time of lodging the complaint, CHIRON had been waiting for the Commission’s final payment under the project for six months.
V času vložitve pritožbe je CHIRON šest mesecev čakal na končno plačilo Komisij e za ta projekt.
Part of the final payment was owed to Stockholm University.
Del končnega plačila je dolg Univerzi v Stockholmu.
The total sum due to CHIRON was 196,528 €, 60,000 € of which was intended for Stockholm University.
Skupni dolgovani znesek CHIRON-u je bil 196.528 €, od tega je bilo 60.000 € namenjenih za Univerzo v Stockholmu.
In June 2002, the complainant tried to find out why there had been no final payment.
Junij a 2002 si je pritožnica prizadevala izvedeti, zakaj ni prišlo do končnega plačila.
In December 2002, Stockholm University sent the Commission supplementary documentation and the Commission subsequently confirmed that the payment should be made to CHIRON within a couple of weeks.
Decembra 2002 je univerza Komisij i poslala dodatno dokumentacijo, Komisij a pa je nato potrdila, da bo plačilo CHIRON-u izvršeno v nekaj tednih.
No payment was made and the complainant subsequently contacted the Commission regarding the ma er about ten times by telephone.
Zaradi neizvršenega plačila se je pritožnica o tej zadevi okrog desetkrat po telefonu pogovarjala s Komisijo.
The Commission informed him that because of internal reorganisation, an “operational verificator” was missing and that was why the payment could not be made.
Komisij a jo je obvestila, da je zaradi notranje reorganizacije manjkal verifikator in da zato plačila ni bilo mogoče izvršiti.
In May 2003, the complainant wrote to the Commission regarding the ma er, but received no reply.
Maja 2003 je pritožnica o tej zadevi pisala Komisij i, vendar ni prejela odgovora.
The complainant alleges that the Commission has failed to make a final payment in the research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
Pritožnica trdi, da Komisij a ni izvršila končnega plačila v raziskovalnem projektu s številko pogodbe ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158.
The complainant claims that the final payment should be made to the coordinator CHIRON in Italy, together with interest for the delay.
Pritožnica zahteva, da se končno plačilo skupaj z zamudnimi obrestmi izvrši koordinatorju CHIRON v Italiji. i.
The contract in question is managed by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Research (DG RTD).
Zadevno pogodbo na Komisij i upravlja generalni direktorat za raziskave (DG RTD).
The scientific deliverables of the contract were approved on 29 July 2002, and the fi le was then transmi ed to the Directorate in charge of the relevant budget.
Znanstvene končne izsledke pogodbe so odobrili 29. julij a 2002, spis pa je bil oddan direktoratu, odgovornemu za ustrezen proračun.
On 31 July 2002, the financial initiator within this Directorate contacted the coordinator CHIRON, requesting corrections in the cost statements.
31. julij a 2002 je finančni pobudnik znotraj direktorata stopil v stik s koordinatorjem CHIRON-a in zahteval popravke poročila o stroških.
The requested corrections did not arrive until 5 December 2002 and the payment was processed on 19 December 2002, but by then the budget for 2002 was already closed.
Zahtevani popravki niso prispeli do 5. decembra 2002 in plačilo so prestavili na 19. december 2002, proračun za leto 2002 pa se je do takrat že zaključil.
Following the opening of the 2003 budget, the financial initiator again initiated the payment on 28 February 2003.
Z novim proračunom za leto 2003 je 28. februarja 2003 finančni pobudnik izdal nalog za plačilo.
Due to organisational problems within DG RTD, the necessary signatures, including those of the financial verificator and the authorising officer, could not be obtained until 11 July 2003.
Zaradi organizacijskih težav znotraj DG RTD-ja do 11. julij a 2003 ni bilo mogoče dobiti potrebnih podpisov, med drugimi tudi podpisov finančnega verifikatorja in odredbodajalca.
The payment was then transferred to CHIRON’s bank account on 21 July 2003.
Plačilo je bilo nato 21. julij a 2003 nakazano na bančni račun CHIRON-a.
The Commission recognises that as of 5 December 2002, the payment was due and should have been executed within 60 days, i.e. by 5 February 2003.
Komisij a priznava, da je dolgovala plačilo po 5. decembru 2002 in bi ga morala izplačati v 60 dneh, t.j. do 5. februarja 2003.
It will therefore initiate the payment of interest for the period from 6 February 2003 to 21 July 2003, as soon as it receives a direct claim from the complainant, which is necessary to authorise the payment.
Zato bo sprejela plačilo dolga za obdobje od 6. februarja 2003 do 21. julij a 2003 takoj, ko prejme neposredno pritožnikovo zahtevo, ki je potrebna za odobritev plačila.
The complainant has already been contacted in this respect.
Pritožnica je bila o tem že obveščena.
The Commission apologises for the late payment and assures the Ombudsman that the financial circuit is now functioning satisfactorily.
Komisij a se opravičuje za pozno plačilo in Varuhu zagotavlja, da finančni krog sedaj deluje zadovoljivo.
Failure to make a final payment in a research project
Opustitev končnega plačila Komisij e v raziskovalnem projektu
1.1 The complaint concerns the Commission’s alleged failure to make a final payment to the coordinator of a research project with contract number ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158, to which Stockholm University is a party.
1.1 Pritožba se nanaša na domnevno opustitev končnega plačila Komisij e v raziskovalnem projektu s številko pogodbe ERBBIO 4 CTT 960158, kjer Univerza v Stockholmu sodeluje kot stranka.
The complainant, who complains on behalf of Stockholm University, therefore claims that the final payment should be made to the co-ordinator, together with interest for the delay.
Pritožnica, ki se pritožuje v imenu univerze, zato zahteva, da naj se končno plačilo skupaj z zamudnimi obrestmi izplača koordinatorju.
1.2 The Commission recognises that as of 5 December 2002, the payment was due and should have been paid within 60 days.
1.2 Komisij a priznava, da je dolgovala plačilo po 5. decembru 2002 in bi ga morala izplačati v 60 dneh do 5. februarja 2003.
However, due to organisational problems within DG RTD, the payment could not be transferred to CHIRON’s bank account until 21 July 2003.
Vendar pa zaradi organizacijskih težav znotraj DG RTD-ja plačila ni mogla nakazati na bančni račun CHIRON-a do 21. julij a 2003.
The Commission apologised for the late payment and assured the Ombudsman that the financial circuit is now functioning satisfactorily.
Komisij a se je opravičila za pozno plačilo in Varuhu zagotovila, da finančni krog sedaj deluje zadovoljivo.
The Commission undertook to initiate the payment of interest for the period from 6 February 2003 to 21 July 2003.
Komisij a se je zavezala sprejeti plačilo obresti za obdobje od 6. februarja 2003 do 21. julij a 2003.
1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to se le the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
1.4 V luči zgoraj navedenega Varuh meni, da je Komisij a v zvezi z reševanjem pritožbe primerno ukrepala in zadovoljila pritožnico.
3.2.3 The European Court of Auditors
3.2.3 Evropsko računsko sodišče
ALLEGED LACK OF INFORMATION ABOUT EXCLUSION FROM COURT OF AUDITORS’ COMPETITION
DOMNEVNO POMANJKANJE INFORMACIJ O IZKLJUČITVI IZ IZBIRNEGA POSTOPKA EVROPSKEGA RAČUNSKEGA SODIŠČA
Decision on complaint 207/2003/OV against the Court of Auditors
Sklep o pritožbi 207/2003/OV zoper Evropsko računsko sodišče
The complainant is a candidate in open competition CC/A/12/02 organised by the Court of Auditors for the recruitment of administrators (career A7/A6) in the field of information technology (OJ C 145 A of 18 June 2002).
Pritožnik je kandidat javnega razpisa CC/A/12/02 za zaposlitev visokih uradnikov (kategorija A7/A6) za področje informacijske tehnologije (UL C 145 A z dne 18. junij a 2002), ki ga je objavilo Računsko sodišče.
By le er of 29 November 2002, the Secretariat of the Selection Board informed the complainant that unfortunately it could not accept the complainant’s participation because “a er a comparative examination of the titles, degrees and the professional experience of all the candidates, your name is not included among the best candidates that are asked to compete, as stipulated in part VII of the competition notice” (translation by the Ombudsman’s services).
S pismom 29. novembra 2002 je tajništvo izbirne komisij e pritožnika obvestilo, da na žalost ne more sprejeti pritožnikovega sodelovanja, ker “po primerjalnem pregledu nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj vseh kandidatov, vaše ime ni vključeno med najboljše kandidate, ki so povabljeni, k izbirnemu postopku, kot je določeno v VII. delu razpisa” (prevod urada Evropskegavaruha).
Part VII of the competition notice provides that “once the qualifications have been marked, the 50 candidates with the highest marks will be admi ed to the wri en tests”.
VII. del razpisa določa, da “ko je ocenjena usposobljenost kandidatov, se 50 kandidatom z najvišjimi ocenami dovoli pisno preverjanje”.
Part VI of the competition notice provides that the qualifications of the candidates will be awarded a maximum of 40 marks (10 marks for degrees or diplomas additional to that required for admission to the competition, and 30 marks for professional experience additional to that referred to in section III(B)(3) of the competition notice).
VI. del objavljenega razpisa določa, da kandidat za usposobljenost dobi največ 40 točk (10 točk za naziv ali dodatne diplome, ki niso zahtevane za vstop v izbirni postopek, in 30 točk za strokovne izkušnje poleg tistih, na katere se nanaša III.(B)(3) del razpisa.
On 8 December 2002, the complainant wrote to the Selection Board to have his candidature reexamined.
8. decembra 2002 je pritožnik pisal izbirni komisij i, naj njegovo kandidaturo ponovno preuči.
He asked to be informed about a) the criteria used for the evaluation (marking) of the titles, degrees and professional experience, b) his mark and c) the mark of the last successful candidate.
Prosil je za informacij e o a) kriterijih, ki so jih uporabljali za vrednotenje (točkovanje) nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj, b) njegovi oceni in c) oceni zadnjega uspešnega kandidata.
On 29 January 2003, the complainant lodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman, claiming:
Pritožnik je pri Evropskemu varuhu 29. januarja 2003 vložil sedanjo pritožbo, kjer zahteva:
1 that the Court of Auditors should inform him of a) the evaluation (marking) criteria of the titles, degrees and professional experience of the candidates, b) his mark and c) the mark of the last successful candidate;
1 da ga Računsko sodišče obvesti o a) kriterijih za vrednotenje (točkovanje) nazivov, diplom in strokovnih izkušenj kandidatov, b) njegovi oceni in c) oceni zadnjega uspešnega kandidata;
On 14 February 2003, the complainant sent additional information concerning his complaint.
14. februarja 2003 je pritožnik o svoji pritožbi posredoval dodatno informacijo.
He had received a reply from the Selection Board, which communicated the marks he obtained (0/10 for his degrees and 14.64/30 for his professional experience).
Prejel je odgovor izbirne komisije, ki mu je posredovala doseženo oceno (0/10 za njegove nazive in 14,64/30 za njegove strokovne izkušnje).