natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the competition concerned was running in parallel with competition COM/A/1/02, anyone who had obtained his fi first degree more than fi ve years previously could apply for this competition. According to the
Ker je javni razpis potekal sočasno z razpisom COM/A/1/02, se je vsakdo, ki je svojo diplomo pridobil pred več kot petimi leti, lahko prijavil na slednjega.
Commission, the requirement of a recently obtained degree was a condition based on the nature of the posts to be filled, and in the case of recruitment in the basic career bracket, the Commission required recent or “fresh” knowledge.
Po mnenju Komisij e je bila zahteva po nedavno pridobljeni diplomi pogoj zaradi narave delovnih mest, ki jih je bilo treba zasesti, v primeru zaposlitve v začetni karierni razred pa je Komisij a zahtevala nedavno pridobljeno oziroma “sveže” znanje.
The Commission also noted that the “recent degree” clause that applied to the competition concerned was broader than in previous competitions, in the sense that the degree that was required for admission to the competition had to be obtained less than
Komisij a je navedla, da je bila klavzula o “nedavno pridobljeni diplomi” v obravnavanem javnem razpisu zastavljena širše kot v prejšnjih razpisih, saj se je za sprejem na javnem razpisu zahtevala diploma, pridobljena v manj kot petih letih od roka za posredovanje prijav (v primerjavi s tremi leti, kot je bilo zahtevano prej).
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the relevant competition was for career bracket A8 (assistant administrator), which is the basic A-grade career bracket and for which no previous professional experience is required.
1.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da je bil javni razpis namenjen kariernemu razredu A8 (pomožni uradnik), ki je osnovni karierni razred kategorij e A, kjer predhodne poklicne izkušnje niso potrebne.
He further notes that the institutions and bodies of the EU organise their competitions in order to recruit officials based on the needs of their services, and that they have considerable discretion in doing so, provided that they comply with the Staff Regulations and other legal rules that are binding upon them.
Nadalje Varuh meni, da institucij e in organi EU organizirajo svoje lastne razpise z namenom zaposliti uradnike za potrebe svojih služb in da imajo pri tem precejšnjo svobodo – ob upoštevanju kadrovskih in ostalih zavezujočih predpisov.
The Ombudsman takes the view that by requiring candidates for A8 posts to have a university degree that has been obtained in the recent past, the Commission has acted within the limits of its legal authority.75 The same conclusion holds true for the Commission’s decision to set the period during which the degree had to be obtained at fi ve years before the closing date.
Varuh meni, da je Komisij a s tem, ko je za kandidate razreda A8 zahtevala pred nedavnim pridobljeno univerzitetno diplomo, ravnala v okviru svojih pristojnosti.75 Isto velja za sklep Komisije, ki določa obdobje, v katerem je treba pridobiti diplomo (v petih letih pred rokom).
Candidates who had obtained their university degree on or before 27 September 1997 but who had three years’ professional experience corresponding to the duties concerned were thus able to take part in competition COM/A/1/02.
Kandidati, ki so univerzitetno diplomo pridobili 27. septembra 1997 oziroma prej, pa so imeli tri leta ustreznih poklicnih izkušenj, so zato lahko sodelovali pri razpisu COM/A/1/02.
1.5 The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was no maladministration on the part of the Commission in so far as the complainant’s original allegation is concerned.
1.5 Varuh zato meni, da Komisij a v zvezi s prvotnimi trditvami pritožnika ni ravnala nepravilno.
Alleged discrimination between women and men in competition COM/A/2/02
Domnevna diskriminacij a žensk v izbirnem postopku COM/A/2/02
2.1 In his observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant took the view that the relevant clause in the notice of competition COM/A/2/02 also constituted discrimination on the
2.1 Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah k mnenju Komisij e trdil, da zadevno določilo v javnem razpisu COM/A/2/02 zapostavlja na podlagi spola.76 Po njegovem mnenju je žensko, ki je diplomirala šest let ali več pred omenjenim datumom in ki je za tem imela otroke, to določilo kaznovalo s prepovedjo udeležbe na razpisu.
Cf. the Ombudsman’s decision of 21 July 2000 on complaints 428/98/JMA and 464/98/JMA and his decision of 28 March 2003 on complaint 1536/2002/OV (which also concerned competition COM/A/2/02).
Prim. sklep Varuha človekovih pravic z dne 21. julij a 2000 o pritožbah 428/98/JMA in 464/98/JMA ter sklep z dne 28. marca 2003 o pritožbi 1536/2002/OV (ki tudi zadeva objavo razpisa COM/A/2/02).
Decisions following an inquiry grounds of sex.76In his view, a woman who had obtained her degree six or more years before the relevant date, and who had then had children, was punished by being excluded from the competition.
Sklepi preiskav tem pogledu precejšnja razlika med izbirnim postopkom, ki je predmet te pritožbe, in pa prejšnjim izbirnim postopkom, ki ga je pripravila Komisij a.
The complainant pointed out that in a previous competition (competition COM/LA/9/99), the Commission had provided for exceptions in such cases.
Javni razpis COM/LA/9/99 je v takih primerih določal, da se končni rok (tj. datum, po katerem je bilo potrebno pridobiti zahtevano univerzitetno diplomo) lahko podaljša za čas, ki ga je kandidat preživel brez zaposlitve, to je do dve leti na otroka, vendar pa v celoti največ za pet let.
It took the view, however, that differences between notices of competition did not constitute discrimination or failure to comply with the principle of equal opportunities.
Res je, da samo razlike med javnimi razpisi niso dokaz za diskriminacijo, vendar pa je dejstvo, da Komisij a očitno ni sprejela nobenih ukrepov, ki bi zadevali ženske v podobni situaciji.
As a consequence, a woman who had obtained her degree on or some time before 27 September 1997 and who had subsequently taken time off work in order to bring up her children was likely to find herself at a disadvantage compared to male candidates, since she would have been neither able to take part in the competition concerned nor (unless she had nevertheless acquired three years’ professional experience) to take part in competition COM/A/1/02.
Posledično je imel moški kandidat verjetno prednost pred žensko, ki je pridobila svojo diplomo 27. septembra 1997 ali prej, kasneje pa nekaj časa ni delala, da bi tako lahko skrbela za svoje otroke, saj ni mogla sodelovati v obravnavanem izbirnem postopku niti (razen če je vseeno pridobila tri leta delovnih izkušenj) na izbirnem postopku COM/A/1/02.
2.4 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why no account was taken of these specific problems in the competition concerned although the Commission must have been aware of them, as the notice of competition COM/LA/9/99 shows.
2.4 Varuh je mnenja, da Komisij a ni zadostno pojasnila, zakaj v obravnavanem izbirnem postopku ni upoštevala teh posebnih težav, čeprav se jih je morala zavedati, kot kaže javni razpis COM/LA/9/99.
The fact that the competition concerned is different from previous ones in that it no longer contains an age limit, laudable as this change is in itself, does not remedy this omission.
Dejstvo, da je ta izbirni postopek drugačen od prejšnjih in da ne vsebuje več starostne meje, kar je sicer samo po sebi pohvalno, te opustitve nikakor ne opraviči.
2.5 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that by omi ing to take sufficient account of the situation of women bringing up children when draing the notice of competition COM/A/1/02, the Commission has failed to ensure equal opportunities between women and men.
2.5 V teh okoliščinah je Varuh mnenja, da Komisij a pri sestavljanju javnega razpisa COM/A/1/02 ni zadostno upoštevala položaja žensk, ki skrbijo za otroke, in zato ni zagotovila enakih možnosti za ženske in moške.
It is good administrative practice to ensure equal opportunities between women and men when deciding on the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates at competitions organised by Community institutions or bodies.
Zagotavljanje enakih možnosti moškim in ženskam pri odločanju o pogojih za kandidate na izbirnih postopkih, ki jih pripravijo institucij e ali organi Skupnosti, je dobra upravna praksa.
In the present case, the Ombudsman takes the view that by omi ing to take sufficient account of the situation of women bringing up children when dra ing the notice of competition COM/A/1/02, the Commission has failed to ensure equal opportunities between women and men.
V tem primeru je Varuh mnenja, da Komisij a pri sestavljanju javnega razpisa COM/A/1/02 ni zadostno upoštevala položaja žensk, ki skrbijo za otroke, in zato ni zagotovila enakih možnosti za ženske in moške.
This is an instance of maladministration.
To je primer nepravilnosti.
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ta vidik pritožbe nanaša na postopke v zvezi z določenimi dogodki v preteklosti, ni primerno, da se v tej zadevi prizadeva za prijateljsko poravnavo.
In view of the fact that it is likely that most competitions will in the future be organised not by the Commission but by the European Personnel Selection Office, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be appropriate to make a dra recommendation, either.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da večine prihodnjih izbirnih postopkov najbrž ne bo več pripravljala Komisij a, marveč Evropski urad za izbor osebja, je Varuh mnenja, da tudi ni primerno pripraviti osnutka priporočila.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Varuh človekovih pravic zato primer zaključuje.
INCONSISTENT APPROACH TO STUDY ON SEALS BY COMMISSION
NEDOSLEDNO OBRAVNAVANJE ŠTUDIJ E O TJULNJIH S STRANI KOMISIJ E
Decision on complaint 754/2003/GG against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 754/2003/GG zoper Evropsko komisij o
The present complaint follows two previous complaints (836/2002/GG and 1574/2002/GG) that were lodged in 2002.
Ta pritožba sledi dvema prejšnjima (836/2002/GG in 1574/2002/GG), ki sta bili vloženi leta 2002.
The facts underlying these previous complaints were as follows:
Dejstva, na katerih temeljita prejšnji pritožbi, so naslednja:
The complainant used to work for the Irish Sea Fisheries Board (the “Board”), an Irish authority.
Pritožnik je prej delal pri irskem uradu za morsko ribištvo (“urad”), ki je irski vladni organ.
The Board had entered into a contract (reference number PEM/93/06) with the European Commission’s Directorate-General (“DG”) XIV (Fisheries) by which it had undertaken to carry out research into “The Physical Interaction between Grey Seals and Fishing Gear”.
Urad je z generalnim direktoratom (“GD”) XIV (ribištvo) Evropske komisij e sklenil pogodbo (sklicna številka PEM/93/06), s katero se je zavezal izvesti raziskavo o “fizični interakciji med sivimi tjulnji in ribiško opremo”.
The complainant was the responsible scientist on this research contract.
Pritožnik je bil pri tej raziskovalni pogodbi odgovorni znanstvenik.
According to Article 3 (“Reports and documents”) of the contract, the tasks carried out by the contractor in performance of this contract were to be the subject of reports drawn up in accordance with Annex III.
V skladu s členom 3 (“Poročila in dokumenti”) pogodbe bi morala pogodbena stranka dejavnosti pri izvajanju te pogodbe opisati v poročilih, pripravljenih v skladu s prilogo III.
The la er detailed in particular how the final report had to be set out and specified that the dra(fi nal) report had to be submi ed to the Commission by a certain date.
Ta priloga je natančno opisala sestavo končnega poročila in določila, da mora biti osnutek (končnega) poročila predložen Komisij i do določenega dne.
Annex III further stipulated: “The Commission will then either notify its acceptance to the Contractor or will send him its comments.
Priloga III nadalje določa: “Komisija potem obvesti pogodbeno stranko
Within one month of receiving any comments from the Commission, the Contractor will send the Commission the definitive report, which will either take account of these comments or will put forward alternative points of view. (…)”
Sklepi preiskav o sprejetju poročila ali pa ji pošlje svoje pripombe. Najkasneje po enem mesecu od prejema pripomb Komisij e pogodbena stranka Komisij i pošlje končno poročilo, ki vključuje te popravke, ali pa predstavi drugačna stališča.”
The dra final report was accepted by the Commission in April 1997.
Komisij a je osnutek končnega poročila sprejela aprila 1997.
According to the complainant, some weeks later the Board had received instructions from its parent civil service authority, the Department of the Marine & Natural Resources, to carry out substantial changes to the dra. Since the complainant had been unwilling to do so, he had considered that his position had become untenable and had resigned from the Board. About a year later, the report was published.
Po navedbah pritožnika je nekaj tednov kasneje urad od svojega nadrejenega upravnega organa, ministrstva za pomorstvo in naravne vire, prejel navodila za precejšnjo spremembo osnutka.
According to the complainant, it had been very substantially altered.
Ker pritožnik tega ni hotel narediti, je ocenil, da je njegov položaj nevzdržen, in zato odstopil.
The main findings of the dra final report had been either deleted, negated or diluted.
Približno eno leto kasneje je bilo poročilo objavljeno, po navedbah pritožnika v kar precej spremenjeni obliki.
The complainant considered that these changes were not allowed under the contract.
Glavne ugotovitve osnutka končnega poročila so bile izbrisane, zanikane ali pa omiljene.
He claimed that no explanation for what happened had yet been offered. ered.
Pritožnik je mnenja, da teh sprememb pogodba ne dovoljuje, in trdi, da ni bilo do sedaj še nobene utemeljitve za to.
On 8 May 2002, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman (complaint 836/2002/GG).
Pritožnik se je 8. maja 2002 obrnil na Varuha (pritožba 836/2002/GG).
In his decision of 27 May 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he was unable to deal with this complaint on the grounds that the complainant had not yet made the appropriate prior approaches to the Commission.
V svojem sklepu z dne 27. maja je Varuh pritožnika obvestil, da pritožbe ni mogel obravnavati, ker pritožnik še ni izvedel ustreznih predhodnih pristopov do Komisije. e.
The complainant then wrote to the Director-General of DG Fisheries at the European Commission on 13 June 2002 asking for explanations.
Pritožnik je nato 13. junij a 2002 pisal generalnemu direktorju GD za ribištvo pri Evropski komisij i in ga prosil za pojasnilo.
By the time he decided to renew his complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2002, the complainant had received neither a reply nor an acknowledgement of receipt regarding this le er.
Do septembra 2002, ko je pritožnik ponovno poslal pritožbo Varuhu, ni prejel niti odgovora niti potrdila o prejemu tega pisma.
In his new complaint (1574/2002/GG), the complainant in substance criticised (1) the fact that the Commission had allowed the Board to make substantial changes to the report as compared to the dra report that had been accepted by the Commission and (2) the Commission’s failure to reply to his le er of 13 June 2002 asking for an explanation as to why these changes had been allowed.
V svoji novi pritožbi (1574/2002/GG) je pritožnik v osnovi kritičen do Komisije, ker je (1) dovolila uradu precej spremeniti poročilo v primerjavi z osnutkom, ki ga je sprejela Komisij a, in (2) ker Komisij a ni odgovorila na njegovo pismo z dne 13. junij a 2002, v katerem je prosil za pojasnilo, zakaj so bile te spremembe dovoljene.
In its opinion on this complaint, the Commission noted that it was not common but that it was not unknown for a final report to differ from a drafi final report, although the la er had been accepted by the Commission.
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju o tej pritožbi omenila, da spremembe končnega poročila v primerjavi z osnutkom končnega poročila, ki ga je Komisij a že sprejela, res niso običajne, vendar tudi ne nemogoče.
In the Commission’s view, it was a er all the responsibility and duty of the contractor (i.e., the Board) to deliver the final report in the form it saw as appropriate.
Komisij a je menila, da je odgovornost in dolžnost pogodbene stranke (tj. urada) vendarle pripraviti končno poročilo v obliki, za katero meni, da je primerna. Komisij a je izjavila, da v takem procesu ne želi posredovati.
In his decision on complaint 1574/2002/GG, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the Commission’s view according to which it was the responsibility and duty of the contractor to deliver the final report in the form it saw as appropriate appeared to be reasonable and that no maladministration could therefore be found with regard to this aspect of the complaint.
V svojem sklepu o pritožbi 1574/2002/GG je Varuh zaključil, da je stališče Komisije, da je odgovornost in dolžnost pogodbene stranke pripraviti končno poročilo v obliki, ki je po njenem mnenju primerna, razumno, in ni ugotovil nepravilnosti v zvezi s tem vidikom pritožbe.
The Ombudsman did however make a critical remark in so far as the Commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s le er was concerned.
Vseeno pa je Varuh kritično opomnil Komisijo, ker ni odgovorila na pritožnikovo pismo.
The new complaint
Nova pritožba
The complainant’s le er was therefore treated as a new complaint.
Pismo pritožnika je bilo zato obravnavano kot nova pritožba.
In this new complaint, the complainant submi ed that the final report was a censored version of the dra final report.
V tej novi pritožbi je pritožnik opredelil končno poročilo kot cenzurirano različico osnutka končnega poročila.
ANINQUIRY fi final report had concluded that 17 tons of fish damaged by seals had been sampled whereas the
V podporo temu mnenju je pritožnik posebej opozoril na ugotovitev v osnutku končnega poročila, da je bilo pregledanih 17 ton rib, ki so jih poškodovali tjulnji.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING corresponding conclusion in the final report had merely stated that damage to fish could be ascribed to large predators such as seals or conger eels.
Na ustreznem mestu v končnem poročilu pa je bila le opazka, da bi poškodbe rib lahko pripisali večjim plenilcem, kot so tjulnji ali ugorji.
According to the complainant, there had been no scientific evidence to suggest that any animal other than seals had caused this damage and the evidence that seals were the cause of the damage had been more than reasonable.
Po navedbah pritožnika ni nobenih znanstvenih dokazov, da te škode niso povzročili tjulnji, dokazi o tem, da so prav tjulnji povzročili to škodo, pa so več kot zadostni.
The complainant argued that the message of the dra final report would have been controversial, and that this was the reason why its conclusions had been changed in the final report.
Pritožnik je menil, da bi bilo sporočilo osnutka končnega poročila lahko sporno, zato so bili zaključki v končnem poročilu spremenjeni.
The complainant submi ed a substantial number of documents to support his case.
V podporo svojemu mnenju je pritožnik predložil precejšnje število dokumentov.
Some of these new documents had been obtained from the Commission following a request for access to copies of all correspondence that had been exchanged between the Commission and the Board in relation to the contract between April 1997 and the date of the Commission’s acceptance of the final report in 1998.
Nekaj teh dokumentov je pridobil od Komisij e po prošnji za dostop do kopij vseh dopisov, izmenjanih med Komisij o in uradom v zvezi s to pogodbo od aprila 1997 do dneva, ko je Komisij a sprejela končno poročilo leta 1998.
For the first time, the complainant also provided copies of the dra final report and the final report themselves.
Pritožnik je prvič predložil tudi kopij e osnutka končnega poročila in tudi končnega poročila.
From these documents, the following facts emerge:
Iz teh dokumentov je razvidno naslednje:
On 16 December 1996, the complainant asked for an extension of the time for submi ing the fi final report from the end of 1996 until the end of February 1997.
Pritožnik je 16. decembra 1996 prosil za podaljšanje roka za predložitev končnega poročila s konca leta 1996 na konec februarja 1997. Komisij a je v svojem odgovoru z dne 14. januarja 1997 navedla, da je odobrila to prošnjo in da je treba osnutek končnega poročila predložiti “najkasneje konec februarja 1997”.
When submi ing the dra final report to the Commission on 4 March 1997, the complainant noted that “some minor modifications” might still be necessary.
Ob predložitvi osnutka končnega poročila Komisij i 4. marca 1997 je pritožnik pripomnil, da bo morda potrebnih še “nekaj manjših sprememb”.
In a fax dated 21 May 1997, the complainant explained that there was a “number of typographical and grammatical errors” in the dra final report and that he would like to amend these in the final report.
V faksu z dne 21. maja 1997 je pritožnik pojasnil, da je v osnutku končnega poročila “vrsta tipkarskih in slovničnih napak”, ki bi jih rad v končnem poročilu popravil.
In a le er of 20 August 1997, the complainant informed the Commission that he would “not now be making any amendments to the Dra Final Report, which was accepted by the Commission fi ve months ago”.
V pismu z dne 20. avgusta 1997 je pritožnik obvestil Komisijo, da “ne bo spreminjal osnutka končnega poročila, ki ga je Komisij a sprejela pred petimi meseci.”
In a le er to the Board of 15 December 1997, the Commission pointed out that the dra final report had been approved and accepted by the Commission as satisfactory.
V pismu uradu z dne 15. decembra 1997 je Komisij a opozorila na dejstvo, da je osnutek končnega poročila odobrila in sprejela kot zadovoljivega.
The Commission noted, however, that it was still waiting for the final cost statement which was necessary to enable it to make the final payment and to close the financial fi le for the project.
Komisij a je navedla tudi, da še vedno čaka na končni izračun stroškov, potreben za končno plačilo, da bi tako lahko zaključili in zaprli finančno kartoteko projekta.
On 7 January 1998, the Board stated in reply that it hoped to be able to complete the final cost statement by mid-February.
Urad je v svojem odgovoru z dne 7. januarja 1998 navedel, da upa, da bo lahko zaključil končni izračun stroškov do srede februarja.
The Board further noted that it was making “the corrections to the final report mentioned in our fax of the 21st of May last”.
Urad je nadalje navedel, da dela “popravke končnega poročila, omenjene v našem faksu z dne 21. maja prejšnjega leta”.
In its reply of 9 January 1998, the Commission took note of the Board’s statement that the final cost statement for the project would be sent the following month.
V svojem odgovoru z dne 9. februarja 1998 je Komisij a izjavila, da se je seznanila z izjavo urada, da bo končni izračun stroškov za projekt poslan naslednji mesec.
On 1 April 1998, the Board submi ed the final cost statement to the Commission.
Urad je 1. aprila 1998 Komisij i predložil končni izračun stroškov.
On 28 April 1998, the Board sent the “definitive final report” regarding the project to the Commission.
Urad je 28. aprila 1998 Komisij i poslal “zadnjo različico končnega poročila” o projektu.
This form contained administrative information relating to the study prepared by the Board.
Ta obrazec je vseboval administrativne podatke o študij i, ki jo je pripravil urad.
The stamp and signature of the Commission service concerned (“Bureau Enregistrement des Etudes”) are dated 17 June 1997.
Žig in podpis pristojne službe Komisij e (“Bureau Enregistrement des Etudes”) nosita datum 17. junij 1997.
Section G of the form concerns the question as to whether the results of the study could be spread outside the Commission.
Oddelek G tega obrazca govori o tem, ali naj bodo rezultati študij e dostopni samo znotraj Komisije.
The answer “yes” (“oui”) is indicated.
Na to vprašanje je podan odgovor “da” (“oui”).