natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the Appeals Commi4 ee was to be regarded as an independent commi4 ee providing individuals with a legal remedy against Europol’s decisions, the JSB assumed that this exception applied in the present case.
Ker je treba Komisijo za pritožbe šteti za neodvisno komisijo, ki posameznikom zagotavlja pravno sredstvo zoper Europolove odločitve, je skupni nadzorni organ predpostavljal, da se ta izjema uporablja v navedenem primeru.
As regards the alleged failure to have carefully dealt with the complainant’s appeal, the JSB stated that two decisions in two di� erent cases had been adopted by the Appeals Commi4 ee and that the first page of the French translation of the decision on the complainant’s appeal had inadvertently been replaced by the first page of the French translation of the other decision.
V zvezi z domnevo, da pritožba pritožnice ni bila skrbno obravnavana, je skupni nadzorni organ navedel, da je Komisija za pritožbe sprejela dva sklepa v dveh različnih primerih in da je bila prva stran francoskega prevoda sklepa v zvezi z njeno pritožbo nenamerno zamenjana s prvo stranjo francoskega prevoda drugega sklepa.
The JSB emphasised that such mistakes should not occur and added that it would send its apologies to the complainant for this error.
Skupni nadzorni organ je poudaril, da se takšne napake ne bi smele dogajati, in dodal, da bo pritožnici poslal opravičilo za napako.
In his decision, the Ombudsman pointed out that the relevant exception set out in Article 195(1) was only applicable where a case had been dealt with by or was pending before a court and that this interpretation was confirmed by Article 1(3) of his Statute.
V svoji odločbi je varuh človekovih pravic opozoril, da se ustrezna izjema iz člena 195(1) uporablja samo, če je primer obravnavalo oziroma obravnava sodišče in da takšno razlago potrjuje člen 1(3) njegovega statuta.
The Ombudsman noted that he was not convinced that the Appeals Commi4 ee should be regarded as a judicial body for the purposes of Article 195 of the EC Treaty and that the fact that it had examined a given case should therefore prevent him from carrying out an inquiry.
Varuh človekovih pravic je navedel, da ni prepričan, da se Komisijo za pritožbo lahko šteje za sodni organ za namene člena 195 Pogodbe ES in da naj bi ga dejstvo, da je ta proučila zadevni primer, odvrnilo od tega, da opravi preiskavo.
He considered, however, that it was not necessary for him to take a definitive position on this issue in the present case.
Po njegovem mnenju mu ni treba sprejeti dokončnega stališča glede tega vprašanja v tem primeru.
The Ombudsman noted in this context that the complainant had not provided any concrete information that would support her allegation that Europol’s decision had been wrong and abusive.
V zvezi s tem je varuh človekovih pravic navedel, da pritožnica ni predložila nobenih konkretnih informacij , ki bi podprle njeno obtožbo, da je bila odločitev Europola nepravilna in nezakonita.
Nor had a careful examination of the decision of the Appeals Commi4 ee yielded any information that would call into doubt Europol’s decision.
Tudi skrbna proučitev sklepa Komisije za pritožbe ni dala informacij , ki bi zbujale dvom glede Europolove odločitve.
In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that there appeared to be no grounds to pursue his inquiry into the complainant’s first allegation.
Glede na te okoliščine je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da ni podlage za preiskavo prve navedbe pritožnice.
As regards the alleged failure to have carefully dealt with the complainant’s appeal, the Ombudsman noted that the JSB had apologised to the complainant for the mistake that had occurred.
V zvezi z domnevo, da pritožba pritožnice ni bila skrbno obravnavana, je varuh človekovih pravic navedel, da se je skupni nadzorni organ opravičil pritožnici za napako, ki se je zgodila.
The Ombudsman therefore took the view that there were no grounds to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the case either.
Zato je ocenil, da ni podlage niti za preiskavo tega vidika primera.
Alleged lack of a legal basis for decision on airworthiness certification of aircra
Odločbe o certificiranju plovnosti zrakoplovov domnevno nimajo pravne podlage
Summary of decision on complaint 1103/2006/BU (Confidential) against the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1103/2006/BU (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko agencij o za varnost v letalstvu (EASA)
The complainant complained to the Ombudsman about the implementation by EASA of Article
Pritožnik je pri varuhu človekovih pravic vložil pritožbo v zvezi z načinom, kako EASA izvaja člen
2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003 and environmental certification of aircra.
2(3)(a)(i) Uredbe 1702/200333 o določitvi izvedbenih določb za certificiranje zrakoplovov glede med drugim plovnosti in okoljske ustreznosti.
The above provision stipulates, in essence, that:
Zgornja določba v bistvu določa, da:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003 of 24 September 2003 laying down implementing rules for the airworthiness and environmental certification of aircra and related products, parts and appliances, as well as for the certification of design and production organisations, OJ 2003 L 243, p. 6.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1702/2003 z dne 24. septembra 2003 o določitvi izvedbenih določb za certificiranje zrakoplovov in sorodnih proizvodov, delov in naprav glede plovnosti in okoljske ustreznosti ter potrjevanje projektivnih in proizvodnih organizacij , UL 2003 L 243, str. 6.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS
EASA ne ugotovi, da osnova za certifi kacij o tipa ne zagotavlja zadostne ravni varnosti.
!a product not certificated under Joint Aviation Authorities procedures, which has a type-certifi cate (TC) issued before 28 September 2003 by a Member State, shall be deemed to have a TC issued in accordance with Regulation 1702/2003 (EASA-TC), unless
Glede na pritožnikove navedbe iz zgornje določbe sledi, da se za proizvode (zrakoplove) z nacionalnim certifikatom tipa, ki ga izda država članica, samodejno šteje, da imajo certifikat tipa EASA, ter da je treba vsa odstopanja od tega načela samodejnega priznavanja ustrezno določiti in utemeljiti, vključno z izjavo o posebnih tehničnih razlogih za zadevni zrakoplov.
In this context, the complainant challenged EASA’s Decision No 2004/01/CF34, by which it implemented the above Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Pritožnik je v tem smislu izpodbijal Odločbo EASA št. 2004/01/CF zgornji člen 2(3)(a)(i) Uredbe 1702/2003.
In its Decision, EASA determined that the type-certification basis of the products listed in the annex to the same Decision may not provide for a su cient level of safety, since:
EASA je v svoji odločbi določila, da osnova za certifi kacij o tipa proizvodov, naštetih v prilogi k isti odločbi, ne zagotavlja zadostne ravni varnosti, ker:
!airworthiness codes used in some Member States are not su ciently known to EASA to ensure that they provide for a su cient level of safety, and
EASA ne pozna dovolj plovnostnih kod, ki se uporabljajo v nekaterih državah članicah, da bi se prepričala, ali zagotavljajo zadostno raven varnosti, in
!su cient details of the type-certification basis used in the certification of products by some Member States are not currently available to EASA.
EASA trenutno nima na voljo dovolj podatkov o osnovi za certificiranje tipa, ki jo nekatere države članice uporabljajo pri certificiranju proizvodov.
The complainant pointed out that EASA’s approach taken in Decision 2004/01/CF implies that a product will not be deemed to have an EASA-TC unless EASA determines that its type-certification basis does provide for a su cient level of safety, and thus contradicts the principle of automatic recognition provided for in Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Pritožnik je opozoril, da pristop agencij e EASA v Odločbi 2004/01/CF pomeni, da se za proizvod ne bo štelo, da ima certifikat tipa EASA, če EASA ne določi, da njegova osnova za certificiranje tipa zagotavlja zadostno raven varnosti, zaradi česar je v nasprotju z načelom samodejnega priznavanja iz člena 2(3)(a)(i) Uredbe 1702/2003.
He also argued that the fact that EASA was not able to acquaint itself with certain airworthiness codes was not a valid reason for concluding that the national type-certification basis of the products listed in the annex to Decision 2004/01/CF may not provide for a su cient level of safety.
Kot je še zatrdil, dejstvo, da se EASA ni mogla seznaniti z nekaterimi plovnostnimi kodami, ne utemeljuje sklepa, da nacionalne osnove certificiranja tipa proizvodov, naštetih v prilogi k Odločbi 2004/01/DF, ne morejo zagotavljati zadostne ravni varnosti.
Therefore, the complainant alleged that EASA was not entitled to base its Decision 2004/01/CF on Article 2(3)(a)(i) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Pritožnik je zato trdil, da EASA ne more utemeljiti svoje Odločbe 2004/01/CF na členu 2(3)(a)(i) Uredbe 1702/2003.
He also alleged that EASA, in breach of Article 2(3)(a)(i) of the same Regulation, failed to determine the EASA-TCs for certain aircra types.
Zatrdil je še, da EASA v nasprotju s členom 2(3)(a)(i) iste uredbe ni določila certifikatov tipa EASA za določene vrste zrakoplovov.
A er having carefully analysed the relevant legal provisions and the arguments of the complainant and EASA, the Ombudsman was not convinced that EASA’s Decision 2004/01/CF (i) had a su cient legal basis in Regulation 1702/2003, and (ii) contained an accurate and su cient statement of the grounds on which it was based.
Temeljita analiza ustreznih pravnih določb ter argumentov pritožnika in agencij e AESA varuha ni prepričala, da ima Odločba 2004/01/CF agencij e EASA (i) zadostno pravno podlago v Uredbi 1702/2003 ter (ii) da točno in zadostno razlaga podlago, na kateri temelji.
Therefore, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution to EASA, in which he suggested that EASA could consider amending its Decision 2004/01/CF so that it would comply with Regulation 1702/2003 and principles of good administration.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic agencij i EASA predlagal prijateljsko poravnavo, v kateri je predlagal, da bi lahko razmislila o spremembi svoje Odločbe 2004/01/CF, tako da bi bila ta v skladu z Uredbo 1702/2003 in načeli dobrega upravljanja.
In its reply to the friendly solution proposal, EASA stated that it had been able to determine the approved design for all aircrasubject to Decision 2004/01/CF that fall within the scope of its responsibilities, including the aircra types referred to by the complainant, for which an EASA-TC would be issued.
Agencij a EASA je v odgovoru na predlog o prijateljski poravnavi navedla, da je določila odobreno zasnovo za vse zrakoplove v skladu z Odločbo 2004/01/CF, ki sodijo na področje njenih pristojnosti, vključno s tipi zrakoplovov, ki jih je navedel pritožnik in za katere se bodo izdali certifikati tipa EASA.
EASA concluded that, as a consequence, Decision 2004/01/CF had been repealed by a new Decision35.
EASA je sklenila, da je bila Odločba 2004/01/CF zaradi tega razveljavljena z novo odločbo35.
The Ombudsman welcomed EASA’s rapid and positive response to his proposal for a friendly solution to the complaint.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pozdravil hiter in pozitiven odziv agencij e EASA na njegov predlog o prijateljski rešitvi pritožbe.
In particular, the Ombudsman, as well as the complainant, welcomed the fact that EASA repealed, in its entirety, the contested Decision 2004/01/CF.
Varuh človekovih pravic in pritožnik sta zlasti pozdravila dejstvo, da je EASA v celoti razveljavila izpodbijano Odločbo 2004/01/CF.
Decision No 2004/01/CF of the Executive Director of EASA of 28 April 2004 on the implementation of Article 2(3)(a) of Regulation 1702/2003.
Odločba št. 2004/01/CF izvršnega direktorja agencij e EASA z dne 28. aprila 2004 o izvajanju člena 2(3)(a) Uredbe 1702/2003.
Decision No 2007/002/C of the Executive Director of EASA of 23 March 2007 repealing Decision 2004/01/CF of the Executive Director of EASA of 28 April 2004 on the implementation of Article 2(3)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1702/2003.
Odločba št. 2007/002/C izvršnega direktorja agencij e EASA z dne 23. marca 2007 o razveljavitvi odločbe 2004/01/CF izvršnega direktorja agencij e EASA z dne 28. aprila 2004 o izvajanju člena 2(3)(a) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1702/2003.
On the basis of these results of his inquiries, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the case were justified, and therefore closed the case.
Varuh človekovih pravic je na podlagi teh rezultatov svojih poizvedb menil, da ni treba več raziskovati zadeve, zato je primer zaključil.
Failure to take action on complaint concerning Working Time Directive
Neukrepanje glede pritožbe v zvezi z direktivo o delovnem času
Summary of decision on complaint 3453/2005/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3453/2005/GG zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In 2001, a German doctor complained to the European Commission about Germany’s alleged failure to comply with EU legislation on working time, in particular as regards the time spent on call by doctors in hospitals.
Leta 2001 je neki nemški zdravnik vložil pritožbo pri Evropski komisiji, ker Nemčija domnevno ni ravnala v skladu z zakonodajo EU o delovnem času, zlasti glede časa, ki ga zdravniki v bolnišnicah porabijo za dežurstva.
The relevant rules were laid down in Directive 93/104/EC, and remained in force until the la4 er was replaced by Directive 2003/88.
Ustrezni predpisi so bili določeni v Direktivi 93/104/ES in so veljali, dokler ni te direktive nadomestila Direktiva 2003/88.
In two judgments rendered in 2000 and 2003, the European Court of Justice held that time spent on call is to be considered as working time within the meaning of these rules.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti je v dveh sodbah, ki ju je izdalo v letih 2000 in 2003, menilo, da je treba v smislu teh predpisov čas, porabljen za dežurstvo, šteti kot delovni čas.
In a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman in December 2003 (complaint 2333/2003/GG), the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint against Germany within an appropriate period of time.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi, ki jo je pri varuhu človekovih pravic vložil decembra 2003 (pritožba 2333/2003/GG), trdil, da Komisija ni obravnavala njegove pritožbe zoper Nemčijo zaradi kršitve v ustreznem roku. Varuh človekovih pravic je preučil primer in ugotovil, da je pritožnikova trditev utemeljena.
He noted, however, that Germany had recently introduced new legislation in this field which the Commission still needed to examine and that the Commission appeared to accept that the decisions of the Court of Justice had clarified the relevant legal issues.
Je pa pripomnil, da je Nemčija pred nedavnim uvedla novo zakonodajo na tem področju, ki jo mora Komisija še pregledati, in da Komisija očitno meni, da so odločitve Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti pojasnile ustrezna pravna vprašanja.
On the assumption that the Commission would not incur further delays in dealing with the complainant’s infringement complaint, the Ombudsman thus closed his inquiry.
Varuh človekovih pravic je tako ob domnevi, da Komisija pri obravnavni pritožnikove pritožbe zoper kršitev ne bo imela dodatnih zamud, končal preiskavo.
In his new complaint (3453/2005/GG), the complainant in essence repeated the allegation that he had already submi4 ed in his earlier complaint, according to which the Commission had failed to deal with his infringement complaint within an appropriate period of time.
V svoji novi pritožbi (3453/2005/GG) je pravzaprav ponovil trditve, ki jih je navedel že v prejšnji pritožbi, da Komisija ni obravnavala njegove pritožbe zoper kršitev v ustreznem roku.
The Ombudsman decided to open a new inquiry.
Varuh človekovih pravic se je odločil začeti novo preiskavo.
In its opinion, the Commission noted that in September 2004 it had submi4 ed to the Community legislator a proposal for an amendment of Directive 2003/88.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju pripomnila, da je septembra 2004 zakonodajalcu Skupnosti posredovala predlog za spremembo Direktive 2003/88.
The Commission pointed out that it would examine the complainant’s infringement complaint in the light of this proposal and of its ongoing discussions with the other Community institutions.
Komisija je poudarila, da bo preučila pritožnikovo pritožbo zoper kršitev ob upoštevanju tega predloga in tekočih razprav z drugimi institucijami Skupnosti.
The Ombudsman took the view that submi4 ing a proposal for amending a directive did not allow the Commission to disregard its duty to ensure that the existing directive was respected by Member States.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je Komisija dolžna zagotoviti upoštevanje obstoječe direktive v državah članicah in da je vložitev predloga za spremembo direktive ne odvezuje te dolžnosti.
He further considered that the Commission’s undoubted discretion in ma4 ers relating to alleged infringements of Community law by Member States did not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that the applicable law may be amended at some time in the future.
Poleg tega je menil, da Komisiji njena nedvomna diskrecijska pravica v zadevah glede domnevnih kršitev prava Skupnosti s strani držav članic ne daje pravice, da v neskončnost podaljšuje sprejemanje odločitve glede pritožbe, ker se bo veljavna zakonodaja nekoč v prihodnosti mogoče spremenila.
On 12 September 2006, the Ombudsman therefore addressed a dra recommendation urging the Commission to deal with the complainant’s infringement complaint as rapidly and as diligently as possible.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato 12. septembra 2006 na Komisijo naslovil osnutek priporočila, v katerem je od nje zahteval, da čim prej in čim bolj vestno obravnava pritožnikovo pritožbo.
On 10 September 2007, the Ombudsman therefore submi4 ed a special report to Parliament concerning this case.
LETNO POROČILO 2007
OWN-INITIATIVEINQUIRIES BY THE OMBUDSMAN
PREISKAVE NALASTNOPOBUDO VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIH PRAVIC
Integration of people with disabilities by the European Commission
Vključevanje invalidov s strani Evropske komisije e
Summary of decision following owninitiative inquiry OI/3/2003/JMA
Povzetek odločbe po preiskavi na lastno pobudo OI/3/2003/JMA
People with disabilities face a wide range of obstacles which prevent them from achieving equal opportunities, independence and full economic and social integration.
Invalidi se srečujejo s številnimi ovirami, ki jim onemogočajo uživanje enakih možnosti, neodvisnost ter ekonomsko in socialno integracijo.
Even though the Union had responded to this challenge by adopting a number of legal and political initiatives to remove those obstacles, the Ombudsman considered that the seriousness of the situation encountered by people with disabilities demanded that the proclaimed commitments be put into practice by means of e � ective actions.
Čeprav se je Unija odzvala na ta izziv s sprejetjem vrste zakonodajnih in političnih pobud za odpravo teh ovir, je varuh menil, da je treba zaradi resnosti položaja, v katerem so invalidne osebe, sprejeti učinkovite ukrepe za uveljavitev sprejetih zavez.
Because of the Commission’s central role within the institutional framework of the Union and its specific commitments towards disabled people, the Ombudsman considered it useful to review the actions undertaken by this institution in this area, and to assess whether or not they were consistent with its legal obligations and stated commitments.
Zaradi osrednje vloge, ki jo igra Komisija v institucionalnem okviru Unije, in zaradi posebnih zavez glede invalidov se je varuhu človekovih pravic zdelo, da bi bilo dobro pregledati ukrepe, ki so jih institucij e sprejele na tem področju, ter oceniti, ali so v skladu z zakonskimi obveznostmi in sprejetimi zavezami.
The Ombudsman therefore decided to open an owninitiative inquiry into the subject of the integration of persons with disabilities by the Commission, in order to ensure that these citizens were not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.
Varuh človekovih pravic se je zato odločil, da bo na lastno pobudo začel preiskavo o vključevanju invalidov s strani Komisije, s čimer bi zagotovil, da ti državljani pri svojih odnosih z institucij o niso diskriminirani.
He requested the Commission to report on (i) the actions it had taken or intended to take to ensure that persons with disabilities were not discriminated against in their relations with the institution as well as (ii) the timetable for their adoption.
Komisijo je pozval, naj poroča (a) o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela ali jih namerava sprejeti za preprečevanje diskriminacije invalidov v njihovih odnosih z institucijo, in (b) o časovnem razporedu za njihovo sprejetje.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry was carried out through an open and transparent dialogue in which individuals with disabilities, representative groups, other ombudsmen at national and regional levels, and the public were invited to contribute.
Preiskava varuha človekovih pravic je potekala prek odprtega in preglednega dialoga, pri čemer so bile k sodelovanju povabljene invalidne osebe, predstavniške skupine, drugi varuhi človekovih pravic na nacionalni in regionalni ravni ter državljani.
On the basis of his review, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has made a genuine e � ort to integrate people with disabilities, even if certain aspects of its policy do not appear to have met public expectations.
Varuh človekovih pravic na podlagi opravljenega pregleda meni, da si Komisija dejansko prizadeva za vključitev invalidnih oseb, čeprav se zdi, da nekateri vidiki njene politike niso izpolnili pričakovanj javnosti.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that progress has been accomplished in a number of areas, including the following:
Varuh človekovih pravic ugotavlja, da je bil napredek dosežen na številnih področij , vključno z naslednjim:
!ensuring that the employment of persons with disabilities by all EU institutions respects fundamental principles enshrined in the new Sta�Regulations, such as non-discrimination on grounds of disability (Article 1d(1)), or the need to provide o cials with disabilities with reasonable accommodation, so that they can perform the tasks assigned to them (Article 1d(4));
• zagotovitev, da vse institucij e EU pri zaposlovanju invalidnih oseb upoštevajo osnovna načela iz novih kadrovskih predpisov, kot so nediskriminacija na podlagi invalidnosti (člen 1d(1)) ali potreba, da se invalidnim uradnikom zagotovi razumna prilagoditev delovnega mesta, tako da lahko opravljajo naloge, ki so jim dodeljene (člen 1d(4));
!candidates to EU competitions with a disability can now benefit from a number of measures to facilitate their participation; moreover, the Commission has undertaken to explore the various means by which the recruitment of people with disabilities can be promoted within the institution;
• invalidni kandidati, ki sodelujejo na razpisih EU, lahko zdaj uživajo ugodnosti vrste ukrepov, ki jim olajšujejo udeležbo; poleg tega se je Komisija zavezala, da bo preučila različne načine spodbujanja zaposlovanja invalidnih oseb znotraj institucije; e;
!the adoption of new requirements regarding the accessibility of the Commission’s premises, fully in line with the standards set out by EU and Belgian law, and specifically addressing the needs of disabled people;
• sprejetje novih zahtev glede dostopnosti prostorov Komisije, ki so popolnoma usklajene s standardi, določenimi v zakonodaji EU in Belgije, in izrecno obravnavajo potrebe invalidov;
!making information more accessible to persons with a disability, in particular as regards the data posted on the Commission’s website; the institution has made laudable e� orts in this direction;
• povečanje dostopnosti informacij za invalide, zlasti v zvezi s podatki na spletni strani Komisije; institucij a si zasluži pohvale za prizadevanje v tej smeri;
!the Commission has made e� orts to make its services more a4 uned to the di culties encountered by persons with disabilities, so that they can adequately respond, if need be.
• zdi se, da je položaj v evropskih šolah v zvezi z invalidnimi učenci nezadovoljiv, in kot kaže, politika evropskih šol za vključevanje te kategorij e otrok ni bila učinkovita;