natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In light of the relevant exception in the EIB’s Rules on Public Access to Documents, this consideration appeared legitimate. The Ombudsman therefore made a finding of no maladministration.
Ob upoštevanju ustrezne izjeme v pravilniku banke EIB za dostop javnosti do dokumentov je bila ta razlaga upraviÏena, zato Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
The complainant also alleged that there had been delays in the EIB’s response to his complaint about the refusal to provide access to the information referred to above.
Pritožnik je še trdil, da je EIB z zamudo odgovorila na njegovo pritožbo, Ïeš da mu ni omogoÏila dostopa do omenjenih informac` .
The EIB stated that, in the light of the complexity of the complainant’s complaint, it had been necessary to wait until all the relevant expert staT could be fully consulted.
EIB je navedla, da je bila pritožba tako zapletena, da se je morala pred odgovorom nanjo posvetovati z ustreznimi strokovnjaki, zato je prišlo do zamude.
In his assessment of this allegation, the Ombudsman pointed out that it is good administrative practice to respond to complaints within a reasonable period of time and in any case within the deadline, if any, laid down by the institution concerned.
Po preuÏitvi te obtožbe je varuh poudaril, da naj bi instituc` e v skladu z naÏelom dobrega upravljanja na pritožbe odgovorile v razumnem Ïasovnem obdobju, v vsakem primeru pa v roku, Ïe ga instituc` a predpiše.
In the present case, the deadline laid down by the EIB in its own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour was two months.
V zadevnem primeru je bil rok, ki ga je EIB opredelila v kodeksu dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, dva meseca. Varuha pojasnilo EIB o zapoznelem odgovoru ni prepriÏalo, saj se mu ni zdelo, da je zadeva v smislu zadevne doloÏbe tega kodeksa res zapletena.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the EIB’s failure to reply to the complainant’s complaint of 9 July 2004 within the two-month deadline set out in its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour was an instance of maladministration and a critical remark was made.
Ker EIB na pritožbo z dne 9. jul` a 2004 ni odgovorila v dvomeseÏnem roku, doloÏenem v kodeksu dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, je ugotovil nepravilnost in napisal kritiÏno oceno.
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED BY THEINSTITUTION
OSNUTKI PRIPOROJIL, KI SO JIH INSTITUCIJE SPREJELE
AGE LIMITS IN TRAINEESHIP PROGRAMME
STAROSTNA OMEJITEV V PROGRAMIH PRAKSE
Summary of decision on complaint 2107/2002/(BB)PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2107/2002/(BB)PB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the rules governing inservice training periods with the Commission, which explicitly mentioned an age limit of 30 years.
Pritožba se je nanašala na pravila o opravljanje prakse pri Komis`i, ki so za praktikante izrecno doloÏala starostno mejo 30 let.
The complainant alleged that the age limit constituted age discrimination and was contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Pritožnik je trdil, da gre pri omejitvi za diskriminac`o na podlagi starosti, ki je v nasprotju z Listino EU o temeljnih pravicah.
Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that: “Any discrimination based on any ground such as [...] age [...] shall be prohibited”.
Jlen 21 listine se glasi: „Prepovedana je vsakršna diskriminac`a na podlagi (…) starosti.”
According to the established case-law of the European Court of Justice, a d iT erence in treatment is discriminatory if it is not justified by objective factors.
V skladu s sodno prakso SodišÏa Evropskih skupnosti je diskriminac`sko vsako razliÏno obravnavanje, ki ni utemeljeno z objektivnimi razlogi.
The Commission argued that the age limit of 30 years was objectively justified because the Commission’s inservice training programme was aimed at young people at the beginning of their careers and that the age limit was therefore non-discriminatory and in conformity with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Komis` a je trdila, da je starostna meja 30 let objektivno merilo, saj je praksa Komis` e namenjena mladim ljudem na zaÏetku kariere. Starostna meja naj bi tako ne bila diskriminac`ska in naj bi se skladala s Ïlenom 21 listine.
On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had accepted the Ombudsman’s draW recommendation and that the measure taken by the Commission was satisfactory. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Na podlagi preiskave je varuh sklenil, da je Komis` a sprejela njegov osnutek priporoÏila in da so njeni ukrepi zadovoljivi, zato je primer zakljuÏil.
The Ombudsman also noted that several other Community institutions and bodies apply an age limit in their traineeship programmes. The Ombudsman therefore announced that he would launch an own-initiative inquiry into these programmes.
Varuh je še opozoril, da veÏ drugih instituc`in organov Skupnosti pri programih prakse doloÏa starostno mejo, in napovedal, da bo o tem sprožil preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
CANCELLATION OF A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
PREKLIC FINANJNIH OBVEZNOSTI
Summary of decision on complaint 2111/2002/MF Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2111/2002/MF (zaupno) zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant submimed a project to the Commission Representation in France on communication strategies in relation to EU enlargement.
Pritožnik je predstavništvu Komis` e v Franc`i oddal projekt o komunikac`ski strateg`i za širitev EU.
The project comprised three press visits.
Projekt je vkljuÏeval tri novinarske obiske.
In November 2001, the Commission made a financial commitment to co-finance the complainant’s project for a sum amounting to EUR 94 854 for the three visits.
Novembra 2001 se je Komis` a fi na n Ï n o obvezala, da bo pritožnikov projekt treh obiskov sofinancirala z zneskom 94 845 evrov.
However, four weeks before the final part of the project concerning the third press visit, the Commission Representation in France decided to cancel the commitment.
Vendar je predstavništvo Komis` e štiri tedne pred konÏnim delom projekta, ki je vkljuÏeval tretji novinarski obisk, sprejelo odloÏitev o preklicu fi na n Ï ni h obveznosti.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that he should receive reimbursement of the costs and compensation for the damage caused.
V pritožbi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je pritožnik trdil, da bi mu morali povrniti stroške in plaÏati odškodnino za nastalo škodo.
The Ombudsman recalled Article 10 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. He observed that the complainant had been informed that the project had been approved and that the identified costs would be covered.
Predlagal je sporazumno rešitev, po kateri bi Komis` a ukrepala tako, da bi bil pritožnik v enakem položaju, v katerem bi sicer bil, Ïe do nepravilnosti ne bi prišlo.
This could include a reasonable oTer of financial compensation.
Sporazumna rešitev bi vkljuÏevala tudi razumno denarno odškodnino.
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to accept his proposal.
Komis` a je varuhu sporoÏila, da se je odloÏila njegov predlog sprejeti.
However, the complainant noted that, despite this commitment, he had not been contacted by the Commission.
Vendar je pritožnik pozneje sporoÏil, da Komis` a kljub zavezi ni stopila v stik z njim.
The Ombudsman therefore made a draW recommendation urging the Commission to contact the complainant without delay in order to seek a fair semlement that would include an oTer of a reasonable compensation.
Varuh je zato oblikoval osnutek priporoÏila, v katerem je Komis` o pozval, naj nemudoma stopi v stik s pritožnikom in se z njim dogovori o praviÏni poravnavi, ki bi zajemala razumno odškodnino.
The Commission finally agreed to pay the complainant compensation of EUR 56 000, which satisfied the complainant.
Komis` a je na koncu privolila, da pritožniku izplaÏa odškodnino 56 000 evrov, s Ïimer je bil ta zadovoljen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Varuh je zato primer zakljuÏil.
SELECTION OF PUPILS FOR THE EUROPEAN SCHOOLS
IZBIRANJE DLAKOV ZA EVROPSKE ŠOLE
Summary of decision on complaint 1435/2003/MF against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1435/2003/MF zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainants applied for the enrolment of their son in the English-language section of the primary school of the European School of Ixelles, in Brussels, for the school year 2003/2004 but the application was rejected.
Pritožnika sta za šolsko leto 2003/2004 zaprosila za vpis sina v angleški oddelek osnovne šole Evropske šole v Ixellesu v Bruslju, vendar je bila njuna vloga zavrnjena.
In their complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainants alleged that they had not been given the reasons justifying the rejection decision and claimed that it should be annulled.
V pritožbi, naslovljeni na varuha Ïlovekovih pravic, sta navedla, da nista bila seznanjena z razlogi, ki bi utemeljevali to odloÏitev, in sta zahtevala, da se zavrnitev razglasi za niÏno.
The Commission stated that the rules for admission of pupils to the European Schools had been approved by the Board of Governors, which had decided that “enrolment in one of the language sections of the European Schools (nursery school, primary school and secondary school) shall be decided, as a rule, on the basis of the tongue mainly spoken by the pupil”.
Komis` a je izjavila, da je pravila za sprejem d`akov v evropske šole potrdil svet guvernerjev, ki je odloÏil, da se pri vpisu v enega od jezikovnih oddelkov evropskih šol (vrtec, osnovno ali srednjo šolo) praviloma upošteva jezik, ki ga d`ak govori kot prvi jezik.
In the complainants’ case, the languages spoken within the family were Italian and Spanish.
V primeru pritožnikov sta bila jezika, ki ju je govorila družina, ital` an š Ï i na in španšÏina.
The complainants’ son was entitled to be enrolled in a European School but not necessarily in the language section chosen by his parents.
Njun sin je imel pravico, da se vpiše v evropsko šolo, vendar ne nujno v jezikovno skupino, ki so jo izbrali starši.
The Ombudsman noted that the lemer sent to the complainants on 25 September 2003 by the Director of the European School of Ixelles referred both to the languages that, according to him, were mainly spoken by the complainants’ son, i.e., Spanish and Italian, and to the lack of available places in the English-language section.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ugotovil, da se je pismo, ki ga je direktor Evropske šole v Ixellesu poslal pritožnikoma 25. septembra 2003, nanašalo na jezika, ki ju po njegovem mnenju veÏinoma govori njun sin, to sta španšÏina in ital` an š Ï in a, in na pomanjkanje mest v angleškem oddelku.
Thus, the decision appeared to be based on both of these considerations.
Tako je odloÏitev verjetno temeljila na obeh pomislekih.
However, if the admission to a specific language section depended on the languages mainly spoken by the pupil, it was di U cult to understand why the Director had also referred to the lack of available places in the English-language section, given that this language did not, according to the Director, belong to the languages mainly spoken by the complainants’ son.
Vendar je, Ïe je bil sprejem v doloÏen jezikovni oddelek odvisen od d`akovih glavnih jezikov, težko razumeti, zakaj je direktor upošteval tudi pomanjkanje mest v angleškem oddelku, glede na to, da po njegovih besedah anglešÏina ni glavni jezik pritožnikovega sina.
If, on the other hand, admission to a specific language section depended on the availability of places in that section, it was di U cult to understand why the Director also referred to the languages mainly spoken by the complainants’ son.
Je pa je bil sprejem v doloÏeno jezikovno skupino po drugi strani odvisen od razpoložljivih mest v njej, je težko razumeti, zakaj se je direktor skliceval na d`akova glavna jezika.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that the lemer of the Director of the European School of Ixelles was not clear enough to enable the complainants to understand the reasons for the decision
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je zato menil, da pismo direktorja Evropske šole v Ixellesu ni bilo dovolj jasno, da bi lahko pritožnika razumela vzroke za zavrnitev vpisa sina v angleški oddelek.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY not to enrol their son in the English-language section.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
ACCESS TO A DOCUMENT ORIGINATING FROM A MEMBER STATE IN THE EXCESSIVE DEFICIT PROCEDURE
DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV DRŽAVE JLANICE V POSTOPKU JEZMERNEGA PRIMANJKLJAJA
Summary of decision on complaint 116/2005/MHZ against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 116/2005/MHZ zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, a Member of the European Parliament, asked the Commission for access to a lemer sent to the Commission in March 2004 by Portugal’s then Minister of Finance in the framework of the excessive deficit procedure.
Pritožnik, poslanec Evropskega parlamenta, je od Komis` e zahteval vpogled v pismo, ki ga je v postopku Ïezmernega primanjkljaja Komis` i marca 2004 postal portugalski fi na n Ï ni minister.
The Commission, invoking Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents24, refused the application on the grounds that disclosure of the lemer would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the financial, monetary or economic policy of the Member State concerned.
SklicujoÏ se na Ïetrto alinejo Ïlena 4(1)(a) Uredbe št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e24 je Komis` a zahtevo zavrnila z utemeljitv`o, da bi razkritje vsebine pisma ogrozilo javni interes, kar zadeva fi na n Ï n o , monetarno in gospodarsko politiko države Ïlanice.
The Commission maintained that disclosure of the lemer would adversely aT ect the Portuguese government’s economic and financial policy.
Komis` a pa je vztrajala, da bi razkritje pisma škodovalo gospodarski in fi na n Ï ni politiki portugalske vlade.
It further stated that, since it considered that this exception precluded it from disclosing the relevant lemer, it had not consulted the Portuguese authorities before refusing the complainant’s application.
Dejala je še, da se o zavrnitvi zahteve ni posvetovala s portugalskimi oblastmi, ker ji paÏ omenjena izjema prepreÏuje razkritje zadevnega pisma.
The Ombudsman then wrote to the Permanent Representation of Portugal to the European Union, asking for the view of the Portuguese authorities as to whether disclosure of the lemer in question would adversely aT ect the Portuguese government’s economic and financial policy.
Varuh je nato pisal stalnemu predstavništvu Portugalske pri Evropski un`i in portugalske oblasti vprašal za mnenje, ali bi razkritje zadevnega pisma škodovalo njihovi gospodarski in fi na n Ï ni politiki.
In their reply, the Portuguese authorities took the view that the lemer in question did not contain elements that could aT ect Portugal’s economic and financial policy and that it could therefore be disclosed to the complainant.
Oblasti so v odgovoru menile, da vsebina zadevnega pisma ne bi vplivala na omenjeno politiko in da se ga zato lahko pokaže pritožniku.
The Ombudsman forwarded the Portuguese authorities’ reply to the Commission and asked the Commission to inform him whether it would now be ready to grant access to the lemer in question.
Varuh je odgovor portugalskih oblasti posredoval Komis` i in jo prosil, naj mu sporoÏi, ali je pripravljena omogoÏiti vpogled v pismo.
Since the Commission failed to reply within the prescribed deadline, the Ombudsman made a draW recommendation that the Commission should reconsider its refusal to give access to the document in question.
Ker Komis` a ni odgovorila v predpisanem roku, je varuh nanjo naslovil osnutek priporoÏila, v katerem jo je pozval, naj ponovno preuÏi svojo odloÏitev o zavrnitvi dostopa.
Shortly a W er the draW recommendation was made, the Ombudsman received a reply from the Commission to his earlier request.
Kmalu po poslanem osnutku priporoÏila je varuh prejel odgovor Komis` e na svojo predhodno zahtevo. Komis` a je v odgovoru privolila, da pritožniku omogoÏi dostop do dokumenta, in je priložila tudi njegov izvod.
The Commission also apologised for its delay in replying to the Ombudsman.
Prav tako se je opraviÏila za zamudo pri odgovoru.
MISLEADING INFORMATION IN PRESS REVIEW
ZAVAJAJOJE INFORMACL E V TISKOVNEM POVZETKU
Summary of decision on complaint 3446/2004/GG against the European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3446/2004/GG zoper Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF)
The complainant, who used to be the Brussels correspondent of the German weekly newspaper Stern, made a number of complaints to the Ombudsman against OLAF.
Pritožnik, nekdanji bruseljski dopisnik nemškega tednika Stern, je na Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic naslovil vrsto pritožb zoper OLAF.
Case 1840/2002/GG concerned accusations by OLAF that confidential OLAF documents used by the complainant in two press articles had been acquired through bribery.
V primeru 1840/2002/GG so bile obravnavane obtožbe OLAF-a, da so bili zaupni dokumenti OLAF-a, ki jih je pritožnik uporabil v dveh Ïasopisnih Ïlankih, pridobljeni s podkupovanjem.
Following an inquiry, the Ombudsman made a critical remark in that case (see the Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2004).
Po preiskavi je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic podal kritiÏno oceno tega primera (glejte Letno poroÏilo 2004).
Case 2485/2004/GG (see below, section 3.7.3) concerned incorrect and misleading statements in OLAF’s submissions to the Ombudsman during the inquiry into case 1840/2002/GG.
V primeru 2485/2004/GG (glejte razdelek 3.7.3 v nadaljevanju) so bile obravnavane napaÏne in zavajajoÏe izjave v zagovoru, ki ga je OLAF predložil varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic v preiskavi primera 1840/2002/GG.
Following his request, OLAF had already changed the relevant passage. However, the complainant considered that it was still misleading.
Ta primer se je nanašal na tiskovni povzetek za jun` 2004, ki ga je OLAF objavil na svojem spletnem mestu.
He claimed that OLAF should immediately withdraw or correct the text.
V njem so bili navedeni Ïlanki o pritožnikovem sporu z OLAF-om, objavljeni v Ïasopisih
However, since OLAF had not presented the contents of that article correctly, the Ombudsman considered that the meaning of the spokesman’s statement had been distorted.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
The European Commission
Pritožnik je trdil, da so bili Ïlanki povzeti pristransko in da je bil s tem popaÏen njihov pomen, s Ïimer je OLAF ravnal neobjektivno in pristransko.
Summary of decision on complaint 1423/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Trdil je, da mora OLAF besedilo nemudoma umakniti ali popraviti.
The complainant, a temporary agent of the European Parliament, had previously acquired pension rights through working in the agricultural sector in France.
Po mnenju varuha Ïlovekovih pravic je besedilo OLAF-a jasno namigovalo, da je nekdanji predstavnik Komis` e potrdil svoje obtožbe proti pritožniku.
He unsuccessfully sought to transfer these pension rights to the Community pension scheme, in accordance with the StaT Regulations.
Vendar je po navedbah v Ïlanku Ïasopisa Süddeutsche Zeitung predstavnik precej omilil svoje izjave.
He then made an Article 226 complaint against France to the Commission.
Zato je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic menil, da je besedilo OLAF-a zavajajoÏe.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to deal properly with his Article 226 complaint.
Poleg tega je bilo v tiskovnem povzetku OLAF-a omenjeno, da je njihov namestnik predstavnika za EUobserver izjavil, da ne vidi razloga za zanikanje Ïlanka v Ïasopisu Süddeutsche Zeitung.
The Commission explained that, with the agreement of the French Ministry of Social ATairs, a French pension authority was considering the possibility of transferring pension rights irrespective of whether France had ratified a special agreement on transfer of pension rights.
Ker pa OLAF ni pravilno predstavil vsebine Ïlanka, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic menil, da je bil popaÏen pomen predstavnikove izjave.
It advised the complainant to contact the administration for which he was working (i.e., Parliament), inviting it to address a reasoned reminder to the relevant French pension authority.
Zato je v osnutku priporoÏila od OLAF-a zahteval, naj ponovno pregleda in popravi informac` e v svojem tiskovnem povzetku.
The Commission considered that it was not appropriate for the moment to bring the mamer before the Court of Justice.
V odgovoru je OLAF predlagal tri naÏine za uresniÏitev osnutka priporoÏila varuha Ïlovekovih pravic: (i) Ïrtanje dveh odstavkov tiskovnega povzetka; (ii) sprememba enega odstavka ali (iii) umik vseh tiskovnih povzetkov s spletnega mesta in prenehanje njihovega objavljanja.
However, if no result was achieved in the short term, the Commission would review its position and bring the mamer before the Court.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je obvestil OLAF, da bi na prvi ali drugi naÏin verjetno rešili problem ter da je po pritožnikovem mnenju drugi naÏin posebej ustrezen.
The Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman of the reply sent by the French pension authority, in which it stated that provisions similar to the ones adopted for the general regime could be adopted for agricultural employees and that the requests submimed to it would be re-examined.
OLAF je nato spremenil besedilo zadevnega odstavka in pritožnik je potrdil, da so bili potrebni popravki narejeni.
The Ombudsman considered it useful to make a further remark pointing out that he understood the Commission to be commimed to finding a solution that would enable the complainant to enjoy his rights as a servant of the European Communities.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je bil seznanjen z drugimi pritožnikovimi kritikami na raÏun OLAF-a, vendar je presodil, da je OLAF sprejel njegov osnutek priporoÏila in da so bili ukrepi za njegovo uresniÏitev ustrezni, zato je primer zakljuÏil.
ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT IN A CASE PENDING BEFORE A NATIONAL SUPREME COURT
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUJENIIZ DRUGIH RAZLOGOV
Summary of decision on complaint 3254/2004/(OV)ID against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1423/2004/ELB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the Commission had not dealt properly with the complainant’s Article 226 complaint, concerning the Greek authorities’ failure to recognise him as a Chemical Engineer on the basis of his professional qualification, obtained in the United Kingdom, as a Materials Engineer.
Pritožnik, zaÏasni uslužbenec Evropskega parlamenta, je pridobil pokojninske pravice z delom v kmet`skem sektorju v Franc`i, vendar mu jih ni uspelo prenesti v sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja Skupnosti v skladu s kadrovskimi predpisi. Nato je pri Komis` i vložil pritožbo na podlagi Ïlena 226 zoper Franc`o. o.
The complainant alleged, in particular, that the Commission had wrongly interpreted and applied Directive 89/48/EEC25 and Articles 43 and 47 of the EC Treaty in his case.
V pritožbi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je navedel, da Komis` a ni ustrezno obravnavala njegove pritožbe po Ïlenu 226.
In deciding whether it is justified to pursue an inquiry into a complaint, the Ombudsman examined whether an assessment of the merits of the complaint would involve an examination of legal or factual issues raised in an action fi led before a Community or national court.
Komis` a je pojasnila, da francoski pokojninski organ v soglasju s francoskim ministrstvom za socialne zadeve obravnava možnost prenosa pokojninskih pravic ne glede na to, ali je Franc`a ratificirala poseben sporazum o prenosu pokojninskih pravic.
This is all the more important where the complaint involves issues pertaining to the interpretation and application of
Pritožniku je svetovala, naj upravo, za katero dela (torej Parlament), pozove, naj zadevnemu francoskemu pokojninskemu organu pošlje utemeljeno opozorilo.