natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the European Schools were originally created by the Member States, which signed the Statute of the European School in 1957.
1.5 Kar zadeva ugovore glede porazdelitve otrok med šolami, je Varuh mnenja, da odločitve o posameznih ugovorih ne spadajo med odgovornosti Komisij e in so zato zunaj obsega Varuhove preiskave.
In 1994, the Member States and the European Communities signed a Convention105 which cancels and replaces the 1957 Statute. That
Varuh tudi ugotavlja, da je Komisij a izjavila, da so mnogim pritožbam ugodili.
1.4 The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that the European Schools are not a Community institution or body, but that the Commission has a certain responsibility for their operation because it is represented in the Board of Governors and contributes largely to their
V tem primeru je Varuh mnenja, da njegova preiskava ni pokazala kršenja pravic otrok, ki jih zagotavlja člen 24 (2) Listine o osnovnih pravicah, še posebej glede na veliko število uspešnih ugovorov in na posledične spremembe izvirne porazdelitve otrok med šolami.
1.5 As regards the appeals concerning allocation of children between the Schools, the Ombudsman considers that decisions on individual appeals are not within the Commission’s responsibility and hence are outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s inquiry.
1.7 Kar zadeva trditev o neustreznem usklajevanju med šolami, Varuh človekovih pravic opozarja, da je bilo vloženih veliko ugovorov in da so po besedah Komisij e mnogim ugodili. Varuh meni, da to dokazuje, da obstaja učinkovit in odziven sistem za obravnavanje pritožb.
1.6 Concerning the alleged violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s acknowledgement that the right to good administration (Art. 41) and the rights of the child (in particular Art 24 (2)106) are binding on the European Schools and also apply to their future reform.
1.9 Varuh tudi opozarja, da Komisij a predstavlja države Evropske skupnosti, ki prispevajo večino sredstev za delo evropskih šol in ki so podpisnica Konvencij e o statutu šol iz leta 1994.
As a general principle, the Ombudsman considers that respect for these rights is consistent with also taking into account efficiency in the allocation of resources between the Schools.
Varuh je mnenja, da odgovornosti Komisij e vključujejo spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja evropskih šol.
In the present case, the Ombudsman does not consider that his inquiry has produced evidence of violation of the rights of children as guaranteed by Art 24 (2) of the Charter, especially taking into account that the original allocation of children between the Schools appears to have been modified by the large number of successful appeals.
Varuh meni, da Komisij a s svojim odzivom na dogodke, ki so privedli do te pritožbe, ni pokazala, da se v popolnosti zaveda te svoje odgovornosti.
The right to good administration is considered further below.
To je primer nepravilnosti.
1.7 As regards the allegation that co-ordination mechanisms between the schools are inadequate, the Ombudsman recalls that a large number of appeals were made and that, according to the
2.1 Zaradi zgoraj pojasnjenih razlogov je Varuh mnenja, da Komisij a s svojim odzivom na dogodke, ki so privedli do te pritožbe, ni pokazala, da se v popolnosti zaveda svoje odgovornosti za spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja evropskih šol.
“In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.”
«Pri vseh ukrepih javnih organov ali zasebnih ustanov, ki zadevajo otroke, se morajo upoštevati predvsem koristi otrok.»
Conclusion
Sklepi preiskav
2.2 The above finding raises an issue of general importance, which is not susceptible to a friendly solution. The Ombudsman therefore makes the following dra recommendation to the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Komisij a se mora zavedati odgovornosti za spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja v evropskih šolah in pripraviti konkretne ukrepe, s katerimi bo v prihodnosti to odgovornost izpolnila.
The Commission’s detailed opinion
Podrobno mnenje Komisij e
The Commission’s detailed opinion was, in summary, as follows:
Povzetek podrobnega mnenja Komisij e je naslednji:
The decision on the opening of a new school in Brussels (B-III) and redistribution of language sections (both newly created sections and those already in existence) between the three schools (B-I, B-II and B-III) was taken by the Board of Governors at its meeting on 28-29 April 1998, taking account of the principles of geographical balance and the rational utilisation of available resources.
Sklep o odprtju nove šole v Bruslju (B-III) in prerazporeditvi jezikovnih oddelkov (obeh novo ustanovljenih in že obstoječih oddelkov) med tri šole (B-I, B-II, B-III) je sprejel Svet guvernerjev na srečanju dne 28. in 29. aprila 1998 ob upoštevanju načel geografske uravnoteženosti in preudarne rabe razpoložljivih virov.
The Board of Governors assigned six sections to B-I (Danish, German, Greek, English, Spanish and French), eight sections to B-II (German, English, Finnish, French, Italian, Dutch, Swedish and Portuguese) and six to B-III (German, English, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch).
Svet guvernerjev je dodelil šest oddelkov šoli B-I (danskega, nemškega, grškega, angleškega, španskega in francoskega), osem oddelkov šoli B-II (nemškega, angleškega, finskega, italijanskega, nizozemskega, švedskega in portugalskega) in šest šoli B-III (nemškega, angleškega, španskega, francoskega, italijanskega in nizozemskega).
The Commission, as a member of the Board of Governors, approved this decision without reservations and fully assumes the responsibility pertaining to it.
Komisij a je kot članica Sveta guvernerjev ta sklep brez zadržkov odobrila in prevzema vso odgovornost v zvezi z njim.
The transfer of pupils as a result of this redistribution of language sections and the work being carried out at B-I is not a ma er for the Board of Governors, but for the bodies normally responsible for the internal management of the system.
Delo šole B-I in selitev učencev, ki je posledica prerazporeditve jezikovnih oddelkov, nista stvar Sveta guvernerjev, temveč teles, pristojnih za notranje upravljanje s sistemom.
Although the Commission’s powers do not extend to ma ers of internal management of the Schools, it has closely followed the progress of this ma er.
Komisij a je, čeprav njene pristojnosti ne segajo v notranje upravljanje šol, pozorno spremljala, kako zadeva napreduje.
Within the Administrative Boards of the schools concerned, it has drawn the a ention of head teachers to the magnitude of the problem and asked them to make every effort to find a solution.
V upravnih odborih zadevnih šol je glavne učitelje opozorila na razsežnost problema in jih prosila, naj si prizadevajo najti ustrezno rešitev.
It was also at the Commission’s request that the Board of Governors examined the procedure followed by the schools, and found it to be correct.
Na njeno prošnjo je Svet guvernerjev tudi preučil postopek, ki so ga izvedle šole, in ugotovil, da je bil ustrezen.
The Commission will again draw the a ention of the Secretary-General of the European Schools to the fact that, in future, especially when the fourth Brussels school opens, all the necessary measures must be taken to ensure that transfers of pupils take place under optimum conditions.
Komisij a bo generalnega sekretarja evropskih šol ponovno opozorila na dejstvo, da je treba v prihodnosti, zlasti ko se bo odpirala četrta šola v Bruslju, sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev porazdelitve učencev v optimalnih pogojih.
The complainant’s observations on the detailed opinion
Pripombe pritožnice k podrobnemu mnenju
The complainant’s observations included, in summary, the following points:
Pripombe pritožnice povzemata naslednji točki:
Parents are extremely worried about the ongoing process of search for a fourth European school in Brussels.
Starši so zelo zaskrbljeni zaradi trenutnega iskanja lokacij e za četrto evropsko šolo v Bruslju.
It is likely that the children’s interests are again not taken into account in discussions with the responsible Belgian authorities.
Zelo verjetno je, da interesi otrok v razpravah z belgijskimi oblastmi ponovno ne bodo upoštevani.
The Commission should intervene to defend children’s and its staff’s interests.
Komisij a bi morala posredovati in se zavzeti za interese tako otrok kot šolskega osebja.
During the procedure for dealing with this complaint, it has become clear that whenever there is a problem that concerns the School’s direct responsibility, parents do not have an instrument to question decisions.
Med obravnavo te pritožbe je postalo jasno, da ob nastanku problema, za katerega je neposredno odgovorna šola, starši na noben način ne morejo izraziti svojih pomislekov glede njenih odločitev.
It is worrying that structures dealing with children are not accountable to anyone.
Dejstvo, da ustanove, ki delajo z otroki, niso nikomur odgovorne, je zaskrbljujoče.
The parents would like to have some advice as to how to tackle this question.
Starši želijo nasvet o tem, kako naj se spoprimejo s tem problemom.
The Ombudsman’s evaluation of the Commission’s detailed opinion
Varuhova presoja podrobnega mnenja Komisij e
1.1 The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry into a complaint concerning the allocation of places at the European Schools in Brussels.
1.1 Varuh je izvedel preiskavo glede pritožbe o dodelitvi mest v evropskih šolah v Bruslju.
Taking into account that the Commission is the representative of the European Communities, which largely finance the European Schools and which are a signatory to the 1994 Convention on their Statute, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s responsibility includes the promotion of good administration by the European Schools.
Upoštevajoč, da je Komisij a predstavnik držav Evropske skupnosti, ki v veliki meri financirajo evropske šole in so podpisnice Konvencij e iz leta 1994 o njihovem statutu, je Varuh zavzel stališče, da odgovornost Komisij e vključuje spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja evropskih šol.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s response to the events that gave rise to the present complaint failed to demonstrate that the Commission fully recognises this responsibility.
Menil je, da iz odziva Komisij e na dogodke, ki so vodili do pritožbe, ni razvidno, da se Komisij a polno zaveda te odgovornosti.
The Ombudsman therefore made the following dra recommendation:
Varuh je zato pripravil naslednji osnutek priporočila:
The Commission should recognise its responsibility to promote good administration by the European Schools and outline concrete measures which it will take to fulfil that responsibility in the future.
Komisij a se mora zavedati svoje odgovornosti za spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja v evropskih šolah in pripraviti konkretne ukrepe, s katerimi bo v prihodnosti to odgovornost izpolnila.
1.2 In its detailed opinion on the dra recommendation, the Commission undertook to draw the a ention of the Secretary-General of the European Schools to the fact that, in future, especially when the fourth Brussels school opens, all the necessary measures must be taken to ensure that transfers of pupils take place under optimum conditions.
1.2 Komisij a je v podrobnem mnenju o osnutku priporočila sklenila opozoriti generalnega sekretarja evropskih šol na dejstvo, da bo treba v prihodnosti, zlasti ko se bo odpirala četrta šola v Bruslju, sprejeti potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev porazdelitve učencev v optimalnih pogojih.
1.3 The Ombudsman considers that, in relation to the subject ma er of the present complaint, the Commission has responded positively to the drarecommendation and thereby taken adequate steps to satisfy it.
1.3 Varuh meni, da se je Komisij a v zvezi s pritožbo pozitivno odzvala na osnutek priporočila in zadovoljivo ukrepala.
1.4 The Ombudsman notes the complainant’s general concerns about the governance and accountability of the European Schools.
1.4 Varuh je opazil splošno zaskrbljenost pritožnice zaradi vodenja in odgovornosti v evropskih šolah.
The Ombudsman will consider whether to begin an owninitiative inquiry into the Commission’s responsibility to promote their good administration, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Presodil bo, ali naj na lastno pobudo sproži preiskavo o odgovornosti Komisij e za spodbujanje dobrega upravljanja v skladu z Listino o temeljnih pravicah.
A further remark to this effect is made below.
Nadaljnja opomba v zvezi s tem sledi spodaj.
The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to satisfy the drarecommendation.
Varuh meni, da je Komisij a zadovoljivo ukrepala na podlagi osnutka priporočila, in primer zaključuje.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
DODATNA OPOMBA
DISCRIMINATION ON THE GROUNDS OF NATIONALITY BY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY AND EU COMPETITION LAW
DISKRIMINACIJ A NA PODLAGI DRŽAVLJANSTVA V TELEKOMUNIKACIJSKEM PODJETJU IN KONKURENČNO PRAVO EU
Decision on complaint 1045/2002/GG against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1045/2002/GG zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant, a German national, studied in Sweden.
Pritožnik, ki je nemški državljan, je študiral na Švedskem.
In order to obtain a telephone subscription from Telia, a Swedish telecommunications company, he had to provide a deposit of 5000 SEK (or a declaration by a Swedish citizen that he would guarantee for this sum).
Da bi lahko postal telefonski naročnik Telie, švedskega telekomunikacijskega podjetja, je moral položiti depozit v višini 5000 SEK (ali izjavo švedskega državljana, ki bi jamčil za to vsoto).
It appears that such a deposit was requested of all foreigners who did not possess a Swedish social security number.
Tak depozit mora očitno plačati vsak tujec, ki nima številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja.
The complainant considered that this was an instance of discrimination contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty, given that Swedish nationals did not have to provide such a deposit.
Pritožnik meni, da je to primer diskriminacij e v nasprotju s členom 12 Pogodbe o ES, saj švedskim državljanom depozita ni treba položiti.
On 25 November 1998, the complainant submi ed a formal complaint to the Commission’s representation in Sweden.
Pritožnik je 25. novembra 1998 vložil uradno pritožbo pri predstavništvu Komisij e na Švedskem.
The la er informed the complainant on 2 December 1998 that the complaint had been forwarded to the Secretariat-General in Brussels.
Slednje je 2. decembra 1998 pritožnika obvestilo, da je pritožbo posredovalo generalnemu sekretariatu v Bruselj.
On 3 September 1999, and further to a reminder from the complainant dated 20 August 1999, the Commission’s Secretariat-General informed the complainant that the case had been registered under reference 99/4916 SG(99) A/9472/2.
Po opominu pritožnika z dne 20. avgusta 1999 je generalni sekretariat Komisij e 3. septembra 1999 pritožnika obvestil o registraciji primera pod številko 99/4916 SG(99) A/9472/2.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in June 2002, the complainant alleged that despite several further reminders (12 July 2000, 18 October 2000 and 18 November 2001) the Commission had neither informed him about the state of the procedure nor about whether it intended to commence infringement proceedings against Sweden.
V pritožbi Varuhu, vloženi junij a 2002, je pritožnik navedel, da ga Komisij a kljub več nadaljnjim opominom (12. julij a 2000, 18. oktobra 2000 in 18. novembra 2001) ni obvestila niti o stanju postopka niti o tem, ali namerava sprožiti postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Švedski.
In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju podala naslednje pripombe:
The above-mentioned circumstances had resulted, to the regret of the Commission, in a certain delay as regards the information of the complainant about the first conclusions of the examination of his complaint and about the Commission’s intention to fi le the complaint.
Komisij a se je najprej posvetovala z več generalnimi direktorati (za notranji trg, pravosodje in notranje zadeve, informacijsko družbo), da bi preverila, če sporno ravnanje posredno ali neposredno izhaja iz določb švedske zakonodaje. Preverjanje je trajalo do poletja 2000, rezultat pa je bila ugotovitev, da je Telia obravnavano zahtevo uvedla sama.
On 8 August 2002, the Commission had sent the complainant a wri en reply concerning his complaint.
S stališča Komisij e je ta razlaga utemeljila različno obravnavanje imetnikov številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja in oseb brez te številke. Odločila se je, da nadaljnja preiskava ni potrebna.
In his observations, the complainant confirmed that he had received the Commission’s le er of 8 August 2002 and noted that the primary purpose of his complaint had thus been achieved.
Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah potrdil, da je prejel pismo Komisij e z dne 8. avgusta 2002, in dodal, da je bil glavni namen pritožbe s tem dosežen.
The complainant pointed out, however, that he was le with the bi er feeling that notwithstanding all his reminders the Commission had not considered it necessary to inform him earlier.
Poudaril je tudi, da mu je ravnanje Komisije, ki se ji ga kljub vsem njegovim opominom ni zdelo potrebno prej obvestiti, pustilo grenak priokus.
In his view, this was more than a “certain delay” and could not be justified by a lack of staff.
Z njegovega stališča je bilo zamude več kot “nekaj” in je ni mogoče opravičiti s pomanjkanjem osebja.
The complainant nevertheless took note of the Commission’s regret and accepted its apologies.
Vseeno je upošteval obžalovanje Komisij e in sprejel njeno opravičilo.
In so far as the substance of the case was concerned, the complainant considered that the reasons given by the Commission for closing its inquiry were not fully convincing.
Glede vsebine zadeve pa pritožnika razlogi, zaradi katerih je Komisij a zaključila preiskavo, niso povsem prepričali.
In the complainant’s view, there had been an infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
Po njegovem mnenju je bil kršen člen 82 Pogodbe o ES.
The complainant considered that the explanation Telia had offered for its behaviour failed to convince, given that Telia was in any event able to pursue debtors abroad.
Pojasnilo, ki ga je Telia dala za svoje ravnanje, namreč ni bilo prepričljivo, saj bi svoje dolžnike lahko v vsakem primeru izsledila v tujini.
He agreed that this might be more difficult than pursuing debtors in Sweden itself. The complainant considered, however, that this could not serve as a justification for discriminations.
Pritožnik se je strinjal, da bi bilo to morda težje kot izslediti dolžnika na Švedskem, kljub temu pa to ne bi smelo služiti kot opravičilo za diskriminacijo.
If the Commission were to accept Telia’s arguments, this would run counter to the logic of the EU’s efforts to simplify the enforcement of claims in other member states.
Če bi Komisij a sprejela argumente Telie, bi bilo to v nasprotju s prizadevanji EU za poenostavitev uveljavljanja terjatev v drugih državah članicah.
The complainant also took the view that Telia could resort to other means to protect itself, for example by asking non-Swedish EU nationals to provide a copy of their identity card or passport.
Z vidika pritožnika bi se Telia lahko zaščitila na drug način, na primer tako, da bi od nešvedskih državljanov EU zahtevala kopij o osebne izkaznice ali potnega lista.
In his view, this information could help to ‘trace’ the debtor.
Ti podatki bi podjetju lahko pomagali izslediti dolžnika.
The complainant also queried whether the mere fact of possessing a Swedish social security number made it easier to reach the debtor in cases where he moved abroad.
Pritožnik se je tudi spraševal, ali samo poznavanje številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja v resnici olajša iskanje dolžnika, če se ta preseli v tujino.
The complainant therefore asked the Ombudsman to support his complaint and to try and make the Commission continue its inquiries.
Pritožnik je zato prosil Varuha, naj podpre njegovo pritožbo, in od Komisij e zahteval nadaljevanje preiskave.
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
PRIZADEVANJE VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIH PRAVIC ZA SPORAZUMNO REŠITEV
A er careful consideration of the opinion and observations, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission had responded adequately to all the complainant’s allegations.
Po tehtni obravnavi mnenja in pripomb Varuh ni bil zadovoljen z odzivom Komisij e na vse pritožnikove trditve.
The proposal for a friendly solution
Predlog sporazumne rešitve
Article 3 (5) of the Statute of the Ombudsman107 directs the Ombudsman to seek, as far as possible, a solution with the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.
Člen 3 (5) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic določa, da Varuh, če je le mogoče, skupaj z zadevno institucij o poišče rešitev, ki bi odpravila nepravilnosti in zadovoljivo ugodila pritožbi.
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, 1994 OJ L 113/15.
Sklep 94/262 Evropskega parlamenta z dne 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog Varuha človekovih pravic, 1994 UL L 113/15.
Telia’s approach had the aim of ensuring that its customer was solvent at the time when it concluded a subscription contract with him.
V skladu s predlogom Varuha je Komisij a preverila zadevo ob upoštevanju novih argumentov pritožnika.
This could be achieved in three ways – by providing the social security number, by furnishing a deposit or by submi ing evidence as to the purchase of a house or apartment in Sweden.
Cilj pristopa Telie je bil zagotoviti, da je stranka ob sklenitvi naročniške pogodbe plačilno sposobna, kar je mogoče doseči na tri načine – s številko socialnega zavarovanja, pologom depozita ali s predložitvijo dokazila o nakupu hiše ali stanovanja na Švedskem.
The Swedish social security number (“personnummer”) was given to every Swedish citizen and to every foreigner residing for more than one year in Sweden.
Številka švedskega socialnega zavarovanja (“personnummer”) se dodeli vsakemu švedskemu državljanu in vsakemu tujcu, ki živi na Švedskem več kot eno leto.
It was composed of several digits that in particular allowed to know the age of the person and his place of birth.
Sestavljena je iz več cifer, ki posebej omogočajo ugotovitev starosti osebe in kraja rojstva.
This number served the purpose of identifying the person for administrative purposes.
Ta številka služi identifi kacij i osebe za upravne namene.
It was used for the purposes of social security, but not exclusively.
Uporablja se za namene socialne varnosti, vendar ne izključno za to.
The translation “social security number” should not obscure this fact.
Besedilo “številka socialnega zavarovanja” tega dejstva ne sme zamegliti.
The number was used by tax authorities and private bodies in order to set up financial databases. By consulting such a database, it was thus possible to verify whether a given person had unpaid debts.
Številko uporabljajo davčne oblasti in zasebni organi za vzpostavitev finančnih zbirk podatkov, v katerih je mogoče preveriti, ali ima oseba neplačane dolgove.
When a person having a “personnummer” wished to subscribe to Telia’s services, the company consulted a database in order to check whether the applicant had any unpaid debts.
Če oseba s številko socialnega zavarovanja želi postati naročnik Teliinih storitev, podjetje preveri v zbirki podatkov, ali ima prijavitelj neplačane dolgove.
Obviously fi financial information was only available on that database if the person had been followed up by the various administrative or private bodies in Sweden.
Finančni podatki so v zbirki podatkov na voljo le v primeru, da osebo obravnavajo razni upravni in zasebni organi na Švedskem.
Telia’s approach of asking for the social security number, a deposit or evidence as to the purchase of a house or apartment in Sweden was independent of nationality.
Telia zahteva številko socialnega zavarovanja, depozit ali dokazilo o nakupu hiše oz. stanovanja na Švedskem ne glede na državljanstvo.