natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The decisions closing the two cases were made on the same day.Case 3643/2005/WP concerned a journalist's request for information concerning the allowances paid to the Maltese MePs.
Odločbi, s katerima sta se oba primera zaključila, sta bili sprejeti isti dan.V primeru 3643/2005/WP je bila obravnavana novinarjeva zahteva po podatkih o nadomestilih, izplačanih malteškim poslancem Evropskega parlamenta.
Parliament rejected the request on grounds of data protection.
Parlament je prošnjo zavrnil na podlagi varovanja podatkov.
The EDPS advised that although MePs should not be denied protection of their privacy, the basic consideration had to be that the public had a right to be informed about their behaviour and especially about the expenditure of public funds entrusted to them.
Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov je navedel, da bi kljub dejstvu, da poslancem Evropskega parlamenta ne smemo zavrniti varovanja zasebnosti, morali najprej upoštevati, da ima javnost pravico biti obveščena o njihovem ravnanju in zlasti izdatkih iz javnih sredstev, ki so jim zaupana.
The Ombudsman made a draft recommendation that the requested information should be disclosed.
Varuh človekovih pravic je sestavil osnutek poročila in v njem navedel, da bi bilo treba zahtevane podatke razkriti.
Parliament accepted only part of the draft recommendation, rejecting the rest by relying on a legal interpretation of the relationship between
Varuh človekovih pravic je pri preiskavi predhodno ugotovil nepravilnost in je predlagal sporazumno rešitev, ki pa je jo Parlament zavrnil.
The Ombudsman dealt with nine inquiries into complaints alleging failure to provide information20.
Varuh človekovih pravic je preiskoval devet pritožb o domnevnem nezagotavljanju podatkov20.
In two cases, the Ombudsman found that Parliament had in fact provided the information requested.
V dveh primerih je ugotovil, da je Parlament pravzaprav zagotovil zahtevane podatke.
The other seven cases were closed because the institutions and bodies concerned provided the information as a result of the Ombudsman's inquiry.
Drugih sedem primerov je bilo zaključenih, ker so zadevne institucije in organi zaradi preiskave varuha človekovih pravic zagotovili podatke.
Four of the cases involved the Commission, one involved OLAF and two involved the Court of Justice.
Štirje primeri so zadevali Komisijo, eden Olaf, dva pa Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
Four of these cases were dealt with using a simplified inquiry procedure.
V štirih primerih je bil uporabljen poenostavljen postopek preiskave.
In addition to the cases referred to above concerning the application of Article 4(1) (b) of Regulation 1049/2001, the Ombudsman made three decisions on complaints which raised data protection issues.In case 1129/2007/MF, the complainant asked the Commission for details of the salary of her former husband (a Commission official) for use in divorce proceedings.
Varuh človekovih pravic je poleg prej navedenih primerov v zvezi z uporabo člena 4(1)(b) Uredbe št. 1049/2001 sprejel tri odločbe o pritožbah v zvezi z vprašanjem varovanja podatkov.Pritožnica je v primeru 1129/2007/MF prosila Komisijo za podrobnosti o plači svojega nekdanjega moža (uradnika Komisije), ker jih je potrebovala pri ločitvenem postopku.
While the Commission refused to provide the information, citing data protection reasons, it made clear that it would accept any request from a competent judicial authority for the information.
Čeprav Komisija ni hotela posredovati podatkov zaradi varovanja podatkov, je jasno navedla, da bo ugodila vsem prošnjam pristojnih sodnih organov, ki bodo zahtevali podatke. Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je stališče Komisije smiselno.
In accordance with the explicit provision of Article 2(7) of his Statute, the Ombudsman closed case 2585/2006/BU, in which the complainant alleged that the Committee of the Regions was unlawfully processing personal data concerning his private finances, when the complainant brought legal proceedings against the Committee.
Varuh človekovih pravic je primer 2585/2006/BU, v katerem je pritožnik trdil, da je Odbor regij nezakonito obdeloval osebne podatke o njegovih zasebnih financah, ko je pritožnik sprožil pravni postopek zoper Odbor, zaključil v skladu z izrecno določbo člena 2(7) Statuta varuha človekovih pravic.
However, the inquiry allowed for important issues to be clarified by the EDPS concerning the right to access one's personal file and to have inaccurate or incomplete data rectified. →→→ In case 754/2007/BU, the complainant claimed that OLAF should send him the final report of an investigation which it had opened on the basis of information he had provided.
Kljub temu pa je preiskava omogočila, da je Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov razjasnil pomembna vprašanja v zvezi s pravico do dostopa do svoje osebne kartoteke in spremembe netočnih ali nepopolnih podatkov. →→→ Pritožnik je v primeru 754/2007/BU trdil, da bi mu Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam moral poslati končno poročilo o preiskavi, začeti na podlagi podatkov, ki mu jih je predložil pritožnik.
OLAF provided a copy of the final report, from which it had removed information that was protected from disclosure under Regulation 1049/2001, including personal data of the complainant.
Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam mu je poslal izvod poročila, iz katerega je odstranil podatke, ki so v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 zavarovani pred razkritjem, vključno z osebnimi podatki pritožnika.
It also provided a second copy, for transmission only to the complainant, from which his own personal data had not been removed.
Poslal mu je tudi drug izvod, namenjen samo pritožniku, iz katerega osebni podatki pritožnika niso bili odstranjeni.
The European Ombudsman — Annual Report 2008
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam ravnal pravilno, zato je primer zaključil in ga vključil na seznam nadvse uspešnih primerov za leto 2008. ←←←
The Commission as guardian of the Treaty
■■Evropska komisija kot varuhinja Pogodbe
One of the Commission's most important duties is to be the guardian of the Treaty21.
Ena najpomembnejših nalog Komisije pa je biti varuhinja Pogodbe21.
Article 226 of the EC Treaty creates a general
V členu 226 Pogodbe ES je določen splošni postopek, v skladu s katerim
Article 226 of the EC Treaty creates a general procedure under which the Commission may investigate and refer to the Court of Justice possible infringements of Community law by Member States.
V členu 226 Pogodbe ES je določen splošnipostopek, v skladu s katerim lahko Komisijarazišče, ali so države članice kršile pravo Skupnosti, in morebitne kršitve predloži Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
procedure under which the Commission may investigate and refer to the Court of Justice possible infringements of Community law by Member States.
lahko Komisija razišče, ali so države članice kršile pravo Skupnosti, in morebitne kršitve predloži Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
Other procedures apply in relation to specific matters such as illegal state aids.The Ombudsman receives and deals with complaints against the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaty.
Drugi postopki se uporabljajo za posebne zadeve, kot so nezakonite državne pomoči.Evropski varuh človekovih pravic sprejema in obravnava pritožbe zoper Komisijo v njeni vlogi varuhinje Pogodbe.
When the Ombudsman opens an inquiry into such a complaint, he is always careful to make clear to the complainant, where necessary, that the inquiry will not examine whether there is an infringement, because the European Ombudsman has no mandate to investigate the actions of Member State authorities.
Kadar varuh sproži preiskavo v zvezi s tako pritožbo, mora pritožniku vedno, kadar je to potrebno, pojasniti, da s preiskavo ne bo preučil, ali obstaja kršitev, ker Evropski varuh človekovih pravic ni pristojen za preiskovanje ukrepov organov držav članic.
The Ombudsman's inquiry is only directed at examining the Commission's behaviour in analysing and treating the infringement complaint presented to it.
V preiskavi varuha človekovih pravic se preučuje samo ravnanje Komisije pri analizi in obravnavi pritožbe o kršitvi, ki ji je bila predložena.
The Ombudsman can deal with both procedural and substantive aspects of the Commission's behaviour.
20.Veliko več primerov nezagotavljanja podatkov je bilo rešenih z neposrednim telefonskim pogovorom z zadevno institucijo (glej razdelek 2.5).21.V členu 211 Pogodbe ES je določeno, da Komisija „skrbi za uporabo določb te pogodbe in ukrepov, ki jih institucije sprejemajo v skladu s to pogodbo“.
However, the Ombudsman's inquiries and conclusions fully respect the Commission's discretionary powers, recognised by the Treaties and the case-law of the Community courts, when deciding whether or not to start an infringement procedure and to bring a case before the Court of Justice against the Member State concerned.As regards the Commission's procedural obligations towards complainants, the Ombudsman's main point of reference is a Communication issued by the Commission in 200222.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic — Letno poročilo 2008 spoštujejo pooblastila Komisije, ki se ji priznavajo s pogodbami in sodno prakso sodišč Skupnosti, kadar se odloča, ali naj sproži postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev in predloži primer Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti zoper zadevno državo članico ali ne.Kar zadeva postopkovne obveznosti Komisije do pritožnikov, je glavna oporna točka varuha človekovih pravic sporočilo, ki ga je Komisija objavila leta 200222.
The Communication lays down a certain number of procedural obligations relating to the registration of complaints submitted to the Commission and the exceptions to this obligation, as well as deadlines for dealing with complaints and for informing the complainants.
Sporočilo določa določeno število postopkovnih obveznosti, ki se nanašajo na evidentiranje pritožb, predloženih Komisiji, in izjeme od te obveznosti ter roke za obravnavo pritožb in obveščanje pritožnikov.
This Communication was issued in 2002, as a response to the Ombudsman's previous inquiries and criticisms he had expressed towards the Commission in relation to these matters.
To sporočilo je bilo izdano leta 2002 kot odgovor na prejšnje preiskave varuha človekovih pravic in njegove kritike, ki jih je glede Komisije izrazil v povezavi s temi vprašanji.
The Ombudsman considers this Communication to constitute a very important step forward in terms of increasing the trust citizens have in the Commission as the guardian of the Treaty.
Varuh človekovih pravic meni, da je to sporočilo zelo pomemben korak naprej v smislu povečevanja zaupanja državljanov v Komisijo kot varuhinjo Pogodbe.
In 2008, the Ombudsman's review of how the Commission applies its own rules revealed a certain number of shortcomings in the application of the Communication.
Varuh človekovih pravic je leta 2008 preveril, kako Komisija uporablja svoja pravila, in odkril več pomanjkljivosti pri uporabi sporočila.
An illustrative sample of these is presented and analysed immediately below.As identified in the followup to a critical remark made in the framework of the decision on case 880/2005/TN, there exist different linguistic versions of point 8 of the Communication.
Izbor takih pomanjkljivosti je analiziran in predstavljen v nadaljevanju.Kot je bilo opredeljeno pri nadaljnjem ukrepanju v zvezi s kritično pripombo na podlagi odločbe v primeru 880/2005/TN, obstajajo različne jezikovne različice točke 8 sporočila.
Whereas the English and the Swedish versions foresee that the institution informs the complainant when it has not been able to take a decision on the substance of the complaint within one year23, the other linguistic versions add that this obligation only exists if the complainant so requests.
Medtem ko je v angleški in švedski različici predvideno, da institucija pritožnika obvesti, kadar ni mogla sprejeti odločbe o vsebini pritožbe v enem letu23, je v drugih jezikovnih različicah dodano, da ta obveznost obstaja samo, če tako zahteva pritožnik.
The Commission considers that the correct linguistic versions are those that foresee the need for a specific request by complainants.
Komisija meni, da so pravilne jezikovne različice tiste, v katerih je predvideno, da je potrebna izrecna zahteva pritožnika.
The Ombudsman considers that, in light of the second sentence of this point, this was not the intention of the Commission when it adopted the Communication.
Varuh človekovih pravic pa meni, da ob upoštevanju drugega stavka te točke to ni bil namen Komisije, ko je sprejela to sporočilo.
The same problem surfaced in the inquiry into case 3737/2006/(BM)JMA, which concerned Spanish legislation on increases in capital taxation.
Ista težava se je pojavila pri preiskavi v primeru 3737/2006/(BM)JMA, ki je obravnaval špansko zakonodajo o višjem obdavčevanju kapitala.
It took two years for the Commission to issue a reasoned opinion to the Spanish authorities and it failed to inform the complainant after one year of registering the complaint.
Minili sta dve leti, preden je Komisija španskim oblastem podala mnenje, pritožnika pa ni obvestila v enem letu po registraciji pritožbe.
The Ombudsman issued a critical remark as well as a further remark, suggesting that the Commission could consider adopting the following approach: it could inform citizens of the
Varuh človekovih pravic je dal kritično pripombo in dodatno pripombo, v njej pa je Komisiji predlagal, naj sprejme ta pristop: državljane bi lahko obvestila o standardih dobrega upravljanja, ki jih morajo upoštevati njene službe pri izvajanju postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev.
21.Article 211 of the EC Treaty requires the Commission to "ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied".22.Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, OJ 2002 C 244, p.
22.Sporočilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožniki v primerih kršitev prava Skupnosti, UL 2002 C 244, str.
5.23."As a general rule, Commission departments will investigate complaints ... within not more than one year from the date of registration ...
5.23.„Službe Komisije praviloma raziščejo registrirane pritožbe ... najpozneje v enem letu od registracije ...
Where this time limit is exceeded, the Commission department responsible for the case will inform the complainant in writing."
Kadar je ta časovna omejitev presežena, služba Komisije, ki je odgovorna za primer, o tem pisno obvesti pritožnika.“
Complaints and inquiries standards of good administration to be followed by its services in pursuing infringement proceedings.
Pritožbe in preiskave pisma državljanov niso bila registrirana kot pritožbe, čeprav so bila jasno poslana s tem namenom.
In case 885/2007/JMA, the Ombudsman criticised the Commission because it failed to reply to the complainant's letter after announcing to him its intention to close its investigation into his complaint.
Čeprav je prepoznala in se sklicevala na določeno izjemo od obveznosti za registracijo, je še vedno ohranjala stališče, da tega ni zavezana storiti.
The Commission also failed to inform him that the case had been formally closed.
Podobno je menila tudi, da ni zavezana pritožnika obvestiti o razlogih, zakaj ni registrirala pritožbe.
The Commission's Communication foresees an obligation to register the complaints it receives in the central registry (point 3(1) of the Communication).
Iste vrste težave, povezane s tem, da pritožba ni bila registrirana in pritožnik ni bil obveščen o razlogih, zakaj se to ni zgodilo, so bile v primeru 431/2008/ELB.
The exceptions to this obligation are enumerated in the following paragraph: "[w]here there is doubt as to the nature of an item of correspondence, the Secretariat-General of the Commission shall consult the department(s) concerned within 15 calendar days of receipt.
V tem primeru je bil predmet pritožbe obravnavan kot peticija Parlamenta in ga varuh človekovih pravic ni preiskoval.
If the department(s) fails to reply within 15 working days, the complaint shall be formally recorded at the central registry of complaints."
Vendar je primer zaključil z dodatno pripombo, s katero je Komisijo spomnil na njene obveznosti, določene v sporočilu.Varuh človekovih pravic lahko pregleda tudi analize in sklepe, ki jih sprejme Komisija, ko preiskuje pritožbe zaradi kršitev.
This clear obligation has given rise to numerous problems.
Pregled varuha človekovih pravic poskuša preveriti, ali so sklepi Komisije razumni in ali so dovolj utemeljeni in razloženi pritožnikom.
For instance, the Ombudsman discovered that letters from citizens were not registered as complaints, even if they were clearly intended as such.
Če se varuh človekovih pravic ne bi strinjal z mnenjem Komisije, bi to navedel, vendar bi poudaril, da je najvišji organ, ki lahko razlaga pravo Skupnosti, Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
Moreover, the Commission did not invoke specific grounds for not doing so.
Vendar je takšno nestrinjanje zelo redko.
This was the case in inquiry 2152/2006/OV, where the Commission accepted a friendly solution proposal to register the complaint.
V večini zgoraj omenjenih primerov je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da je stališče Komisije v zvezi s predmetom primera pravilno.
However, in case 2914/2006/WP which concerned competition law, the Commission refused to admit that it had erred.
V primeru 841/2008/BEH je pritožnik, proizvajalec alkoholne mešane pijače, izpodbijal odločitev Komisije, da konča primer, ki je obravnaval domnevno kršitev načela prostega pretoka blaga.
Although it identified and invoked a particular exception to the obligation to register, it maintained its view that it was not obliged to do so.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je stališče Komisije smiselno, pri tem pa je upošteval, da imajo države članice, kar se tiče izjem, predvidenih v členu 30 Pogodbe ES, veliko manevrskega prostora.
It equally considered that it was not obliged to inform the complainant of the reasons for not registering the complaint.
Tudi primer 1551/2007/JMA je obravnaval to določbo Pogodbe in, natančneje, preiskavo Komisije o odločitvi francoskih državnih organov, da prepovejo uvoz jajc iz Španije po pojavu salmonele.
The same kind of problem relating to failure to register a complaint, and failure to inform the complainant of the reasons for not doing so, occurred in case 431/2008/ELB.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da je Komisija spoštovala vse postopkovne zahteve iz prej omenjenega sporočila, in je menil, da je stališče Komisije, da se države članice same odločajo glede ustrezne stopnje zaščite javnega zdravja, pri čemer upoštevajo morebitne neželene učinke izdelka in znanstvene podatke, ki so na voljo, razumno.Primer 885/2007/JMA je obravnaval projekt na Kanarskih otokih, ki bi lahko imel negativne učinke na okolje na dveh območjih, ki sta določeni kot „Območji, pomembni za Skupnost“.
In this particular case, the substantive matter was being dealt with as a petition by Parliament and the Ombudsman did not investigate it.
Pritožnik je trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala podatkov v zvezi z alternativnimi lokacijami.
He closed the case with a further remark, however, reminding the Commission of its obligations as laid down in the Communication.The Ombudsman can also review the substance of the analyses and conclusions reached by the Commission when investigating infringement complaints.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da je Komisija podrobno preučila pomisleke pritožnika in je razložila razloge, zakaj je sklenila, da se ob upoštevanju določenih pogojev zadevni projekt lahko nadaljuje.
The Ombudsman's review aims at verifying whether the conclusions reached by the Commission are reasonable and whether they are well argued and thoroughly explained to complainants.
Kljub temu je kritiziral Komisijo, ker ni odgovorila na zadnje pismo pritožnika, ni obravnavala posebnih argumentov v njem in pritožnika ni obvestila o formalnem koncu postopka v zvezi z njegovo pritožbo.
If the Ombudsman were to fundamentally disagree with the Commission's assessment, he would say so but underline that the highest authority in interpreting Community law is the Court of Justice.
Primer 789/2005/(GK)ID je obravnaval domnevo, da so grški organi kršili direktivo Skupnosti o študijah presoje vplivov na okolje (EIa) v zvezi z izgradnjo tramvajske proge v Atenah.
Disagreements of this kind are, however, exceptional.
Varuh človekovih pravic je predlagal, naj Komisija razmisli o tem, da bi znova preučila pritožnikove argumente v zvezi z ustreznostjo in primernostjo presoje vplivov na okolje.
In most of the above mentioned cases, the Ombudsman considered the Commission's stance on the substance of the case to be correct.
Predlagal je še, naj razmisli o tem, ali so bila obvestila o ustreznih javnih posvetih objavljena dovolj obširno.
In case 841/2008/BEH, the complainant, a producer of an alcoholic mix-drink, had contested the Commission's decision to close a case which concerned an alleged infringement of the principle of the free movement of goods.
Komisija ni upoštevala priporočil varuha človekovih pravic, zato je primer zaključil s kritično pripombo.V primeru 2152/2006/OV se je nizozemski upokojenec, ki prebiva v Franciji, pritožil Komisiji, da Nizozemska krši pravila Skupnosti o socialnovarstvenih ugodnostih.
Case 1551/2007/JMA also concerned this Treaty provision, and, more specifically, the Commission's investigation of a decision by the French authorities to ban the import of eggs from Spain following a case of salmonella.
Pri zaključitvi primera je varuh človekovih pravic izjavil, da verjame, da bo Komisija pri preučitvi primera upoštevala zadnje argumente, ki jih je izpostavil pritožnik, in poudaril, da pritožnik lahko vloži novo pritožbo, če ne bo zadovoljen s končno odločitvijo Komisije o tem primeru.V primeru 3249/2006/(PB)WP se je nemški državljan pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic, po tem ko Komisija ni hotela ukrepati zoper Nemčijo, ker mu je kratila pravico do prostega gibanja. To se je zgodilo po sporu zaradi obveznosti za plačilo davka.
The European Ombudsman — Annual Report 2008 concluded that the Commission had respected all the procedural requirements set out in the aforementioned Communication and considered reasonable the Commission's position that it was for Member States to decide on the appropriate level of protection of public health, while taking into account the potential adverse effects of a product and the available scientific data.Case 885/2007/JMA concerned a project in the Canary islands which could have a negative environmental impact on two areas classified as "Sites of Community Importance".
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic — Letno poročilo 2008 vale pravo Skupnosti, in da ti postopki niso namenjeni popravi krivic, ki so se pritožnikom zgodile v zvezi s preteklimi dogodki. Menil je, da nadaljnja preiskava ni upravičena.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission had analysed the complainant's concerns in detail and had explained the reasons which led it to conclude that, subject to certain conditions, the project in question could proceed.
Primer 1962/2005/IP je obravnaval projekt cestne obvoznice, ki jo sestavljajo trije posamezni odseki.
He criticised the Commission, however, for failing to reply to the complainant's last letter, to address the specific arguments made in that letter, and to inform the complainant of the formal closure of his complaint.
Pritožnik je trdil, da okoljski predpisi v pravu Skupnosti niso bili upoštevani pred začetkom gradnje.
Case 789/2005/(GK)ID concerned an alleged infringement by the Greek authorities of the Community Directive concerning environmental impact assessment studies (EIAs) in relation to the construction of the Athens tramway.
Komisija je končala postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev in navedla, da ni bilo kršitve prava Skupnosti.
The Ombudsman proposed that the Commission consider re-examining the complainant's arguments regarding the adequacy and propriety of the EIA.
Varuhu človekovih pravic se razlaga Komisije o razlogih za končanje primera ni zdela zadostna in skladna.