natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the admissibility, the complainant observed that the Ombudsman’s decision to admit the present complaint is perfectly in line with the Ombudsman’s interpretation of his procedures according to which, in case of any doubt concerning whether prior administrative approaches have been made, such doubt should go in favour of the complainant.
Kar zadeva dopustnost, je pritožnik pripomnil, da je odločitev Varuha o dopustnosti te pritožbe popolnoma v skladu z Varuhovo interpretacijo lastnih postopkov, glede na katero se v primeru dvoma o predhodni izvedbi administrativnih pristopov odloči v korist pritožnika.
Moreover, the facts underpinning the present complaint were well known to ECOSOC from complaint 906/2002/OV.
Nadalje so dejstva, ki utemeljujejo to pritožbo, ECOSOC-u dobro znana iz pritožbe 906/2002/OV.
The complainant reiterated that his view that he had been successful in open competition PE/86/A was held legitimately and in good faith on the basis of the facts available at the time.
Pritožnik je ponovil, da je bilo njegovo mnenje o uspešnosti na javnem razpisu PE/86/A legitimno in v dobri veri na podlagi takrat razpoložljivih dejstev. Tako je ravnal v dobri veri, ko je v svojih pismih ECOSOC-u trdil, da je uspešno opravil izbirni postopek.
ECOSOC at no point retracted its allegation that the complainant provided it with false information, nor did it provide any facts to substantiate the allegation.
ECOSOC ni nikoli preklical svoje trditve o pritožnikovem navajanju napačnih informacij niti ni teh trditev podkrepil s kakršnimi koli dokazi.
Instead, ECOSOC aggravated the situation by claiming that the complainant was not entirely truthful towards the ECOSOC officials, that he played on the potential ambiguity of the concepts, that he was himself the source of the incomplete information provided to ECOSOC, and that he should bear the consequences of his disloyal action.
Namesto tega je ECOSOC položaj še poslabšal s trditvijo, da pritožnik ni bil popolnoma odkrit z uradniki ECOSOC-a, da je izrabil potencialno dvoumnost besednih zvez, da je bil on sam vir nepopolnih informacij , ki jih je dobil ECOSOC, in da mora nositi posledice svojega nelojalnega ravnanja.
These additional allegations are as unfounded and as unsubstantiated as the allegation that is the subject of the present complaint.
Te dodatne trditve so tako neosnovane in nedokazane kot trditev, ki je predmet te pritožbe.
ECOSOC was again acting deliberately to discredit the complainant by making libellous allegations against him.
ECOSOC je spet namenoma skušal diskreditirati pritožnika z obrekovanjem.
If officials specialised in staff ma ers could, on the basis of copies of le ers of the European Parliament concerning his candidature, come to the conclusion that the complainant was eligible for recruitment as an official, then surely a European citizen with no detailed knowledge of an institution’s recruitment procedures might be forgiven for coming to the same conclusion in good faith.
Če so uradniki, specializirani za kadrovske zadeve, na podlagi kopij pisem Evropskega parlamenta v zvezi z njegovo kandidaturo sklepali, da je pritožnik primeren za zaposlitev kot uradnik, tedaj lahko evropski državljan brez podrobnega poznavanja postopkov zaposlovanja v institucijah opravičeno v dobri veri pride do enakega zaključka.
The responsibility for knowing the recruitment procedures rests with the Community institutions and not with the citizen.
Odgovornost za poznavanje postopkov zaposlovanja nosijo institucij e Skupnosti in ne državljani.
The complainant discharged any personal responsibility by providing ECOSOC with all the relevant information, including documentary evidence.
Pritožnik je bil s predložitvijo vseh pomembnih informacij ECOSOC-u, vključno z listinskimi dokazi, razrešen vsakršne osebne odgovornosti.
The admissibility of the complaint
Dopustnost pritožbe
1.1 In its opinion, ECOSOC questions the admissibility of the complaint on two grounds: a) the question which arises is a problem of a procedural nature that must be resolved as part of the same proceedings used to reach a decision on the initial complaint, and b) the complainant has not made prior administrative approaches in relation to this new complaint.
1.1 V svojem mnenju ECOSOC dvomi o dopustnosti pritožbe zaradi dveh razlogov: a) problem je postopkovne narave in mora biti zato rešen v okviru istega postopka, ki se je zaključil s sklepom o prvi pritožbi, in b) pritožnik ni predhodno izvedel administrativnih pristopov v zvezi s to novo pritožbo.
If there is any doubt, for example, concerning whether there has been sufficient prior contact (…), such doubt should normally be resolved in favour of the complainant.
V primeru dvoma, na primer o zadostnem predhodnem izvajanju (...), se navadno odloči v korist pritožnika.
If a complaint is wrongly deemed inadmissible, the citizen’s rights are put at risk”.90
Če je pritožba napačno opredeljena kot nedopustna, se s tem kršijo pravice državljana.”90
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the allegation that is the subject of the present complaint is closely linked to the ma er which was examined in the framework of the inquiry into complaint 906/2002/OV.
1.3 Varuh meni, da je trditev, ki je predmet te pritožbe, tesno povezana z zadevo, pregledano v okviru preiskave pritožbe 906/2002/OV.
The complainant has for the first time complained about this allegation in the framework of this former complaint, namely in his observations on ECOSOC’s opinion.
Pritožnik se je prvič pritožil zaradi te trditve v okviru svoje prejšnje pritožbe, natančneje v svojih pripombah k mnenju ECOSOC-a.
ECOSOC has been informed of this, as the Ombudsman sent a copy of his decision of 16 December 2002 to ECOSOC, and the decision mentioned the allegation that is the subject of the present complaint.
ECOSOC je bil o tem obveščen, saj je Varuhov sklep z dne 16. decembra 2002, katerega kopij o je Varuh poslal ECOSOC-u, omenjal trditev, ki je predmet te pritožbe.
1.4 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the condition of “appropriate” prior administrative approaches is met in the present complaint.
1.4 Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je Varuh mnenja, da je pogoj predhodne izvedbe “ustreznih” administrativnih pristopov pri tej pritožbi izpolnjen.
Requiring the complainant to contact ECOSOC again before complaining to the Ombudsman would have been inappropriate and unduly legalistic.
Zahteva po ponovnem stiku pritožnika z ECOSOC-om pred predložitvijo pritožbe Varuhu bi bila neustrezna in po nepotrebnem legalistična.
The complaint is therefore admissible.
Tako je pritožba dopustna.
The statement that the complainant provided “false information” and the claim for a retraction of that statement
Izjava, da je pritožnik navedel “napačne informacije”, in zahteva po preklicu te izjave
2.1 The complainant alleges that ECOSOC’s statement in its opinion on complaint 906/2002/OV that he provided false information is unfounded and constitutes an act of maladministration.
2.1 Pritožnik trdi, da je izjava ECOSOC-a v njegovem mnenju o pritožbi 906/2002/OV, da je navedel napačne informacije, neutemeljena in je primer nepravilnosti.
He claims that ECOSOC should fully retract the statement in writing, and apologise, also in writing, for wrongfully having called into question his personal honesty and integrity.
Zahteva, da ECOSOC popolnoma prekliče to izjavo v pisni obliki in se opraviči, tudi v pisni obliki, za neupravičen dvom v njegovo osebno poštenost in odkritost. Pritožnik trdi, da je ravnal v dobri veri.
2.2 ECOSOC argues that the complaint should be rejected as there was no general inconsistency, nor any slander or accusation to be read from the wording of the statements in its opinion in case 906/2002/OV.
2.2 ECOSOC trdi, da bi moral biti pritožnik zavrnjen, ker ni bilo v besedilu izjav v njegovem mnenju o primeru 906/2002/OV najti nobene splošne nedoslednosti niti obrekovanja ali obtožb.
ECOSOC has in no way sought to discredit the complainant.
ECOSOC ni na noben način skušal diskreditirati pritožnika.
The complainant played on the potential ambiguity of the concepts, was himself the source of the incomplete information provided to ECOSOC and must bear the logical consequences of his disloyal action.
Pritožnik je izrabil potencialno dvoumnost besednih zvez, bil sam vir nepopolnih informacij , ki jih je dobil ECOSOC, in mora nositi logične posledice svojega nelojalnega ravnanja.
2.3 The Ombudsman recalls that the complainant’s application for a post at ECOSOC was based on the following text in the le er of the European Parliament’s competition service of 29 July 1999 concerning the complainant’s participation in open competition PE/86/A : “I regret to inform you that it was not possible to include your name on the list of suitable candidates because, although you obtained the pass-mark in each of the tests and you obtained the required 60 % of the marks in all the wri en and oral tests, you are not among the 13 best candidates to whom the list of suitable candidates had to be restricted”.
2.3 Varuh je opozoril, da je pritožnik svojo prijavo za delovno mesto pri ECOSOC-u podal na podlagi naslednjega besedila v pismu službe Evropskega parlamenta za izbirne postopke z dne 29. julij a 1999 glede pritožnikovega sodelovanja na javnem razpisu PE/86/A: “Na žalost vas moram obvestiti, da vas ni bilo mogoče uvrstiti na seznam primernih kandidatov, ker niste med 13 najboljšimi kandidati, na katere smo morali omejiti seznam primernih kandidatov, čeprav ste opravili vse teste in pridobili zahtevanih 60 % točk v vseh pisnih in ustnih testih.”
As stated in the Ombudsman’s decision of 16 December 2002 on complaint 0906/2002/OV, it is clear from this phrase – starting with “I regret to inform you” – that the complainant had not succeeded in the competition.
Kot določa sklep Varuha z dne 16. decembra 2002 o pritožbi 0906/2002/OV, je iz tega odlomka – ki se začne z “Na žalost vas moram obvestiti” – jasno, da pritožnik na izbirnem postopku ni bil uspešen.
The complainant’s belief that he passed the competition and could apply for a post at ECOSOC was thus wrong.
Mnenje pritožnika, da je opravil izbirni postopek in da se lahko prijavi za delovno mesto pri ECOSOC-u, je bilo tako napačno.
The Ombudsman notes that, amongst the normal meanings of the word false, is “deliberately untrue”.
Varuh ugotavlja, da je med običajnimi pomeni besede napačen tudi pomen “namenoma neresničen”.
In its opinion on the present complaint, ECOSOC has not provided any evidence to show that the complainant deliberately provided untrue information.
ECOSOC ni v svojem mnenju o tej pritožbi navedel nobenega dokaza, da je pritožnik namenoma navedel neresnične informacije.
ECOSOC could, in its opinion on the present complaint, have withdrawn and apologised for any suggestion that the complainant did not act in good faith.
ECOSOC bi lahko v svojem mnenju o tej pritožbi umaknil in se opravičil za kakršnekoli namige, da pritožnik ni ravnal v dobri veri.
Instead, ECOSOC has made further insinuations of bad faith – without substantiating them – by stating that the complainant “has used the potential similarity between these two notions as the basis for his entire defence strategy”, “played on the potential ambiguity of concepts” and “must now bear the logical consequences of his disloyal action.”
Namesto tega je ECOSOC nadalje namigoval na zlonamernost – brez dokazov – z izjavo, da je pritožnik “svojo celotno obrambno strategijo osnoval na možnosti podobnega pomena teh dveh besednih zvez”, “izrabil potencialno dvoumnost besednih zvez” in “mora zdaj nositi logične posledice svojega nelojalnega ravnanja”.
2.5 When a Community institution or body considers that it has acted correctly and that it cannot be blamed for maladministration, then it is useful that the institution or body explain its actions and give reasons for them.
2.5 Ko institucij a ali organ Skupnosti meni, da je ravnal pravilno in da ga ni mogoče obtožiti nepravilnosti, je koristno, če obrazloži svoja dejanja in jih utemelji. To ponavadi izboljša razumevanje
This usually promotes understanding of the actions of the administration.
Sklep Evropskega parlamenta o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog Varuha človekovih pravic, UL L 113/15 z dne 4. maja 1994.
Annual Report of the Ombudsman 1995, pages 20-21.
Letno poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic za leto 1995, str. 20-21.
Decisions following an inquiry
Sklepi preiskav ravnanja uprave.
2.6 Principles of good administration require that institutions be correct and courteous in their relations with the public.
2.6 Načela dobrega upravljanja od institucijzahtevajo korektnost in vljudnost pri njihovih odnosih z javnostjo.
If an error occurs, which negatively affects the rights or interests of a member of the public, the institution shall apologise for it and endeavour to correct the negative effects resulting from this error92.
Če se zgodi napaka, ki negativno vpliva na pravice ali interese posameznika, se mora institucij a za to napako opravičiti in poskušati popraviti negativne posledice, ki izhajajo iz te napake.92 V tem primeru ECOSOC ni izpolnil svoje dolžnosti ravnati vljudno.
In the present case, ECOSOC has failed to comply with the duty to act courteously.
To predstavlja primer nepravilnosti, zato Varuh daje kritično pripombo.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Na podlagi preiskave Varuha glede te pritožbe je treba dati naslednjo kritično pripombo:
Principles of good administration require that institutions be correct and courteous in their relations with the public.
Načela dobrega upravljanja od institucij zahtevajo korektnost in vljudnost pri njihovih odnosih z javnostjo.
If an error occurs, which negatively affects the rights or interests of a member of the public, the
Če se zgodi napaka, ki negativno vpliva na pravice ali interese posameznika, se mora institucij a za to napako opravičiti in poskušati popraviti negativne posledice, ki izhajajo iz te napake.93
Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, and considering the position adopted by ECOSOC in its opinions on the present case and case 906/2002/OV, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ta primer nanaša na postopke v zvezi z določenimi dogodki v preteklosti, in ob upoštevanju stališča ECOSOC-a, izraženega v njegovih mnenjih o tem primeru in primeru 906/2002/OV, ni primerno prizadevanje za sporazumno poravnavo v tej zadevi.
3.4.5 The European Anti-Fraud Offi ce
3.4.5 Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam jam
UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BRIBERY AGAINST JOURNALIST
NEUTEMELJENE TRDITVE O PODKUPOVANJU, USMERJENE PROTI NOVINARJU
Decision on complaint 1840/2002/GG against the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce
Sklep o pritožbi 1840/2002/GG zoper Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam jam
This is a short summary of the decision which could not be published in full due to its length.
To je kratek povzetek sklepa, ki ga zaradi njegove dolžine ni bilo mogoče objaviti v celoti.
The summary deals with only one aspect of the case, which also involved other allegations.
Povzetek opisuje samo enega od vidikov primera, ki je vseboval tudi druge trditve.
The complete text of the decision in German and English can be found on the Ombudsman’s website at : h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/021840.htm
Celotno besedilo sklepa v angleškem in nemškem jeziku je na spletni strani Varuha: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/021840.htm
The complainant is the Brussels correspondent of the Stern, a German weekly newspaper.
Pritožnik je dopisnik nemškega tednika Stern iz Bruslja.
Stern published two articles about alleged irregularities that had been raised by an EU official, Mr Paul van Buitenen, and the related inquiries carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF).
Stern je objavil dva članka o domnevnih nepravilnostih, na katere je opozoril uradnik EU Paul van Buitenen, in s tem povezanih preiskavah Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
These articles were based on confidential documents obtained by the complainant.
Ti članki so bili osnovani na zaupnih dokumentih, ki jih je pridobil pritožnik.
OLAF subsequently published a press release saying that “a” journalist had obtained a number of documents relating to this inquiry and that it had decided to open an internal inquiry into, amongst other things, the allegation that the relevant documents had been obtained “by paying a civil servant.”
OLAF je za tem objavil izjavo za javnost, v kateri je zapisal, da je “neki” novinar pridobil več dokumentov, povezanih s to preiskavo, in da je urad začel notranjo preiskavo, med drugim tudi o trditvi, da so bili zadevni dokumenti pridobljeni s pomočjo “plačila javnemu uslužbencu”.
See the Ombudsman’s decision of 13 March 2002 in the own initiative inquiry OI/1/2002/OV concerning CEDEFOP, Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2002, p. 204.
Glej sklep Varuha z dne 13. marca 2002 v preiskavi na lastno pobudo OI/2002/OV o Evropskem centru za razvoj poklicnega usposabljanja (CEDEFOP), Poročilo Varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2002, str. 204.
See also at h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/02oi1.htm.
Glej tudi h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/02oi1.htm.
Article 12.1 and 12.3 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Člena 12.1 in 12.3 Evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev.
The complainant considered that OLAF had acted wrongly by making public in a press release and in its comments to European Voice allegations of bribery that had to be understood as directed at him and his newspaper.
Pritožnik je menil, da je OLAF ravnal nepravilno, ko je v izjavi za javnost in v svojih pripombah časopisu European Voice objavil trditve o podkupovanju, ki jih je bilo razumeti kot usmerjene proti njemu in njegovemu časopisu.
During the Ombudsman’s inquiry, OLAF argued that the decision to announce that an internal investigation had been opened was taken a er careful consideration.
Med Varuhovo preiskavo je OLAF zatrdil, da so se za javno objavo začetka notranje preiskave odločili po temeljitem preudarku.
Given the serious implications of the possibility that an OLAF official was responsible for the illegal disclosure of confidential information and personal data, OLAF’s Director decided to announce publicly and in the most transparent way possible that OLAF was investigating these breaches in order to identify those responsible, and to prevent any such further violations.
Zaradi resnih posledic možnosti, da je uradnik OLAF-a odgovoren za nezakonito objavo zaupnih informacij in osebnih podatkov, se je direktor OLAF-a odločil za čim bolj jasno javno objavo, da OLAF preiskuje te kršitve zato, da bi našel odgovorne osebe in preprečil nadaljnje kršitve.
Moreover, on the basis of specific information which OLAF had received, it had reason to believe that, on at least one occasion, payment had been made to an OLAF official or other EU official for the supply of confidential documents.
Nadalje je OLAF na podlagi prejetih specifičnih informacijupravičeno verjel, da je uradnik OLAF-a ali drug uradnik EU vsaj enkrat prejel plačilo za posredovanje zaupnih dokumentov.
Enquiries as to whether this had in fact occurred were still ongoing.
Preiskava, ali se je to dejansko zgodilo, je še vedno tekla.
OLAF also argued that its reference to “a” journalist was neutral and did not implicate any specific individual.
OLAF je tudi zatrdil, da je besedilo o “nekem” novinarju nevtralno in ni poimensko vpletlo nobenega posameznika.
A er considering OLAF’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman stated that it is good administrative practice to ensure, when taking decisions, that the measures adopted are proportional to the aim pursued.
Po obravnavi mnenja OLAF-a in pritožnikovih pripomb je Varuh izjavil, da praksa dobrega upravljanja vključuje tudi zagotavljanje sorazmernosti sprejetih ukrepov glede na želeni cilj pri sprejemanju odločitev.
In particular, the administration ought to avoid restricting the rights of citizens when those restrictions are not in a reasonable relation with the purpose pursued by the action.94 These standards ought to apply not only to decisions, but to the activity of administrations in general.
Še posebej bi se morala uprava izogibati omejevanju pravic državljanov, ko te omejitve niso v razumni povezavi z namenom ukrepa.94To bi moralo veljati ne samo za ukrepe, ampak tudi za delovanje uprave na splošno.
They are therefore also relevant for the provision of information.
Ta merila zatorej veljajo tudi za posredovanje informacij .
The Ombudsman welcomed in principle the fact that OLAF had decided to proceed in the “most transparent way possible”.
Varuh je načeloma pozdravil odločitev OLAF-a, da vodi postopek “kar najbolj jasno transparentno”.
Such an approach is in conformity with the obligation of the institutions and bodies of the EU to take decisions as openly as possible (Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union).
Tak pristop je v skladu z dolžnostjo institucij in organov EU, da sprejemajo odločitve čim bolj odprto (člen 1 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji).
However, an insinuation of bribery is a serious allegation which is likely to tarnish the reputation of a journalist.
Vendar je namigovanje na podkupovanje resna obtožba, ki lahko omadežuje dobro ime novinarja.
Such insinuations must therefore not be made in public without a sufficiently serious basis that can be scrutinised publicly.
Taka namigovanja torej ne smejo biti javna brez ustrezno močne podlage, ki jo je mogoče javno preveriti.
The Ombudsman considered that OLAF had not established that publication of the suspicion of bribery was necessary for the purpose of its work and proportional to the aim pursued.
Varuh je menil, da OLAF ni dokazal, da je bila objava suma podkupovanja potrebna za namen njegove dejavnosti in da je sorazmerna z želenim ciljem.
He therefore made the following dra recommendation to OLAF, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Zato je OLAF-u v skladu s členom 3(6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic posredoval naslednji osnutek priporočila:
OLAF should consider withdrawing the allegations of bribery that were published and that were likely to be understood as directed at the complainant.
OLAF naj prouči možnost, da bi umaknil objavljene obtožbe o podkupovanju, ki se lahko razumejo kot usmerjene proti pritožniku.
The relevant passage in this press release reads as follows: “OLAF’s enquiries have not yet been completed, but to date, OLAF has not obtained proof that such a payment was made.”
Zadevni odlomek v tej izjavi se glasi: “OLAF preiskave še ni zaključil, vendar nima do sedaj nobenih dokazov, da je bilo tako plačilo opravljeno.”
The Ombudsman agreed with the complainant’s view that this press release did not adequately implement the Ombudsman’s drarecommendation.
Varuh se je strinjal z mnenjem pritožnika, da ta izjava za javnost ni v zadostni meri izvršila Varuhovega predloga priporočila.
Instead of withdrawing the allegations of bribery, OLAF simply stated that “to date” it has not found sufficient evidence to support these allegations.
Namesto da bi umaknil trditve o podkupovanju, je OLAF preprosto izjavil, da “do sedaj” ni našel zadostnih dokazov, s katerimi bi podprl te trditve.
In these circumstances, the action taken by OLAF is manifestly inadequate to remedy the instance of maladministration.
V teh okoliščinah ukrepi OLAF-a očitno ne zadostujejo za odpravo nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman considered that a critical remark could constitute adequate satisfaction for the complainant and that it was not therefore appropriate to submit a special report to the European Parliament.
Varuh je menil, da bi kritična pripomba v zadostni meri zadovoljila pritožnika in da zato ni primerno predložiti posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with the following critical remark:
Varuh je tako zaključil primer z naslednjo kritično pripombo:
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED BY THEINSTITUTION
OSNUTKIPRIPOROČIL, KISOJIHINSTITUCIJESPREJELE
3.5.1 The Council of the European Union
3.5.1 Svet Evropske unij e