natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With a view to enhancing quality control and to improving productivity, the Legal Department was divided into four teams, each headed by a principal legal supervisor.
Da bi se izboljšal nadzor kakovosti in povečala produktivnost, se je pravna služba razdelila na štiri ekipe, od katerih vsako vodi glavni pravni nadzornik.
A new IT application was introduced to facilitate case-management.
Uvedena je bila nova aplikacija IT, da bi olajšali obravnavo primerov.
All of these developments proved invaluable in helping to increase productivity during the year.
Vse pridobitve so se izkazale za neprecenljive in so pripomogle k povečevanju produktivnosti v tem letu.
The 40% rise in the number of cases closed in 2007 confirms that the improvements made in the structure and functioning of the Ombudsman’s Legal Department in recent years are beginning to have a real e� ect.
40 odstotkov več zaključenih primerov v letu 2007 potrjuje, da začenjajo imeti izboljšave strukture in delovanja pravne službe varuha človekovih pravic, dosežene v zadnjih letih, resničen učinek.
The Ombudsman will build on this further in 2008.
V letu 2008 bo varuh človekovih pravic to še nadgrajeval.
Also from an organisational perspective, 2007 saw a slight change with the Ombudsman’s complaint-handling secretariat now supervised directly by the Assistant to the Head of the Legal Department.
Tudi z organizacijskega vidika je bilo v letu 2007 nekaj sprememb v sekretariatu varuha človekovih pravic za obravnavanje pritožb, ki ga zdaj neposredno nadzira pomočnik vodje pravne službe.
This reflects more closely the functions of that secretariat which are directly linked to the work of the Legal Department.
S tem pridejo bolj do izraza naloge tega sekretariata, ki so neposredno povezane z delom pravne službe.
The establishment plan of the Ombudsman showed a total of 57 posts in 2007, the same as for 2006.
V kadrovskem načrtu varuha človekovih pravic je bilo leta 2007 skupaj 57 delovnih mest, enako kot leta 2006.
No increase is foreseen for 2008.
Za leto 2008 ni predvideno povečanje tega števila.
Total budgeted appropriations for 2008 are EUR 8 505 770 (compared to EUR 8 152 800 in 2007).
Dodeljena proračunska sredstva znašajo za leto 2008 skupaj 8 505 770 EUR (v primerjavi z 8 152 800 EUR leta 2007).
One of the most important ways in which the European Ombudsman promotes good administration is by investigating possible maladministration and recommending corrective action where necessary.
Eden najpomembnejših načinov, kako evropski varuh človekovih pravic spodbuja dobro upravljanje, je preiskovanje domnevnih nepravilnosti in priporočanje ukrepov za izboljšanje, kadar so potrebni.
Possible instances of maladministration come to the Ombudsman’s a4 ention mainly through complaints, the handling of which represents the most important aspect of the Ombudsman’s reactive role.
Varuh človekovih pravic se z domnevnimi primeri nepravilnosti seznani predvsem iz pritožb, katerih obravnava je najpomembnejši vidik njegove dejavne vloge.
The right to complain to the European Ombudsman is one of the rights of citizenship of the European Union (Article 21 of the EC Treaty) and is included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 43).
Pravica do pritožbe evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic spada med pravice, ki izhajajo iz državljanstva Evropske unije (člen 21 Pogodbe ES), in je vključena v Listino o temeljnih pravicah (člen 43).
The Ombudsman also conducts inquiries on his own initiative, thereby taking a proactive role in combating maladministration and promoting good administration.
Varuh lahko opravlja preiskave tudi na lastno pobudo in tako prevzame dejavno vlogo pri odpravljanju nepravilnosti in spodbujanju dobrega upravljanja.
THELEGAL BASIS OF THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK
PRAVNAPODLAGA ZA DELO VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
The Ombudsman’s work is governed by Article 195 of the EC Treaty, the Statute of the Ombudsman (which is a decision of the European Parliament1) and the Implementing Provisions adopted by the Ombudsman under Article 14 of the Statute.
Delovanje varuha človekovih pravic urejajo člen 195 Pogodbe ES, statut varuha človekovih pravic
The current Implementing Provisions came into e� ect on 1 January 2003.
1) in izvedbene določbe, ki jih je varuh človekovih pravic sprejel
They are available on the Ombudsman’s website (h4 p://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) and in hard copy from the Ombudsman’s O ce.
Na voljo so na spletni strani varuha človekovih pravic (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu), v tiskani obliki pa na njegovem uradu.
The Statute continues to provide a good framework for the Ombudsman’s activities.
Statut je še vedno dober okvir za dejavnosti varuha človekovih pravic.
However, a er a careful review, the Ombudsman identified certain limited changes that could enhance his capacity to work more e� ectively for the benefit of European citizens.
Vendar pa je po pozornem pregledu varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da bi nekatere manjše spremembe lahko izboljšale njegovo sposobnost za učinkovitejše delo v korist evropskih državljanov.
On 11 July 2006, he therefore wrote to the President of the European Parliament, requesting initiation of the procedure for amending the Statute.
11. julija 2006 je zato predsedniku Evropskega parlamenta poslal prošnjo za sprožitev postopka za spremembo statuta.
At the end of 2007, the Commi4 ee on Constitutional A� airs was considering a dra report on the proposed changes (rapporteur Ms Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI).
Konec leta 2007 je Odbor za ustavne zadeve obravnaval osnutek poročila o predlaganih spremembah (poročevalka Anneli JÄÄTTEENMÄKI).
THE MANDATE OF THEEUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
PRISTOJNOSTIEVROPSKEGA VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
Article 195 of the EC Treaty empowers the Ombudsman to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered o ce in a Member State, concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
S členom 195 Pogodbe ES je varuh človekovih pravic pooblaščen za sprejemanje pritožb državljanov Unije in fizičnih ali pravnih oseb s prebivališčem ali registriranim sedežem v eni od držav članic v zvezi z nepravilnostmi pri delu institucij in organov Skupnosti, razen Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišča prve stopnje pri opravljanju njune sodne funkcije.
A complaint is therefore outside the mandate if:
Pritožba torej ni v njegovi pristojnosti, če:
1. the complainant is not a person entitled to make a complaint;
1. pritožnik ni oseba, upravičena do pritožbe;
2. the complaint is not against a Community institution or body;
2. pritožba ni vložena proti institucij i ali organu Skupnosti;
European Parliament Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.
Sklep Evropskega parlamenta 94/262 z dne 9. marca 1994 o pravilih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje funkcije varuha človekovih pravic, UL 1994 L 113, str. 15.
3. the complaint is against the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role; or
3. je pritožba vložena proti Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti ali Sodišču prve stopnje zaradi opravljanja njune sodne funkcije; ali
4. the complaint does not concern a possible instance of maladministration.
4. pritožba ne zadeva morebitne nepravilnosti.
An o cial made a complaint against the Civil Service Tribunal (CST), concerning its application of the Rules of the Procedure and Practice Directions of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in a pending case in which the complainant was the applicant.
Uslužbenec je vložil pritožbo proti Sodišču za uslužbence glede njegove uporabe poslovnika in praktičnih navodil Sodišča prve stopnje v tekoči zadevi, v kateri je bil pritožnik vlagatelj.
The complainant argued that the requirements of the above provisions concerning the translation of supporting documents and the maximum length of the application were an unacceptable restriction of his access to justice.
Pritožnik je trdil, da so bile zahteve zgoraj navedenih določb v zvezi s prevodom dokaznih dokumentov in največjim dovoljenim obsegom vloge nesprejemljiva omejitev njegovega dostopa do pravnega varstva.
The Ombudsman considered that the exception in Article 195 of the EC Treaty for the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role applies to the CST, which is a judicial panel attached to the CFI.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da se izjema iz člena 195 Pogodbe ES za Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišče prve stopnje pri opravljanju njune sodne funkcije uporablja za Sodišče za uslužbence, ki je sodni oddelek Sodišča prve stopnje.
The Ombudsman also took the view that the subject matter of the complaint concerned the latter’s judicial role.
Menil je tudi, da predmet pritožbe zadeva sodno funkcijo slednjega.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that he was not entitled to deal with the complaint.
Zato je menil, da ni pooblaščen za obravnavo te pritožbe.
Complaints and owninitiative inquiries
Pritožbe in preiskave na lastno pobudo
Although the right to complain to the European Ombudsman is limited to citizens, residents and legal persons with a registered o ce in a Member State, the Ombudsman also has the power to open inquiries on his own initiative.
Čeprav je pravica do pritožbe evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic omejena na državljane, prebivalce in pravne osebe z registriranim sedežem v državi članici, lahko varuh človekovih pravic preiskavo sproži tudi na lastno pobudo.
Using the owninitiative power, the Ombudsman may investigate a possible case of maladministration brought to his a4 ention by a person who is not entitled to make a complaint.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic lahko to možnost uporabi za preiskavo mogočega primera nepravilnosti, na katerega ga opozori oseba, ki nima pravice vložiti pritožbo.
The Ombudsman’s practice in such cases is to give the person concerned the same procedural opportunities during the inquiry as if the ma4 er had been dealt with as a complaint.
Njegova praksa v takih primerih je, da zadevni osebi med preiskavo omogoči enake postopkovne možnosti, kot če bi se zadeva obravnavala kot pritožba.
The Ombudsman normally approaches on a case-by-case basis the question of whether to use the owninitiative power in this way.
Varuh človekovih pravic se o sprožitvi preiskave na lastno pobudo po navadi odloča v vsakem primeru posebej.
In the Annual Report for 2006, the Ombudsman stated that, subject to possible future resource constraints, he envisaged using the owninitiative power whenever the only reason not to inquire into a complaint alleging maladministration by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in its lending activities outside the EU (external lending) is that the complainant is not a citizen or resident of the Union.
V letnem poročilu za leto 2006 je varuh človekovih pravic navedel, da ob upoštevanju mogočih omejitev virov v prihodnosti predvideva tudi uporabo možnosti preiskave na lastno pobudo, kadar je to, da pritožnik ni državljan ali prebivalec Unije, edini razlog, zakaj se pritožba o domnevni nepravilnosti Evropske investicijske banke (EIB) pri njenih posojilih zunaj EU (zunanjih posojilih) ne preišče.
In its Resolution of 25 October 2007, the European Parliament welcomed the Ombudsman’s declaration of intent and invited him to consider concluding a Memorandum of Understanding with the EIB.
Evropski parlament je v resoluciji z dne 25. oktobra 2007 pozdravil izjavo varuha človekovih pravic o nameri in ga pozval, naj razmisli o sklenitvi memoranduma o soglasju z EIB.
On 5 December 2007, the Ombudsman wrote to the President of the EIB inviting discussions on the draing of a Memorandum of Understanding.
Varuh človekovih pravic je 5. decembra 2007 predsedniku EIB poslal pismo, v katerem ga je povabil k razpravi o pripravi osnutka memoranduma o soglasju.
Community institutions and bodies
Institucij e in organi Skupnosti
The European Ombudsman’s mandate covers the Community institutions and bodies.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je pristojen za institucij e in organe Skupnosti.
The institutions are listed in Article 7 of the Treaty but there is no definition or authoritative list of Community bodies.
Institucij e so navedene v členu 7 Pogodbe, ni pa opredelitve ali veljavnega seznama organov Skupnosti.
The term includes bodies established by the Treaties, such as the Economic and Social Commi4 ee and the European Central Bank, as well as bodies set up by legislation under the Treaties, including agencies such as the European Environment Agency and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX).
Izraz vključuje organe, ustanovljene s pogodbami, kot sta Ekonomsko-socialni odbor in Evropska centralna banka, ter organe, ustanovljene z zakonodajo v skladu s pogodbami, vključno z agencijami, kot sta Evropska agencij a za okolje in Evropska agencij a za upravljanje in operativno sodelovanje na zunanjih mejah držav članic (FRONTEX).
Complaints against public authorities of the Member States are not within the European Ombudsman’s mandate, even if they concern ma4 ers within the scope of EU law.
Pritožbe proti državnim organom držav članic niso v pristojnosti evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, tudi če so zadeve s področja zakonodaje EU.
An example of a complaint that was not against a Community institution or body
Primer pritožbe, ki ni bila usmerjena proti instituciji ali organu Skupnosti
In January 2007, a complainant submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman concerning the terms on which he had been dismissed from his position at the Western European Union (WEU).
Januarja 2007 je pritožnik varuhu človekovih pravic predložil pritožbo v zvezi s pogoji njegove razrešitve z delovnega mesta pri Zahodnoevropski uniji (ZEU).
The complaint was made against the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union, Mr Javier SOLANA, who is also Secretary-General of WEU.
Pritožba je bila vložena zoper generalnega sekretarja Sveta Evropske unije Javierja SOLANO, ki je tudi generalni sekretar ZEU.
It appeared from the complaint that the contested decision was taken by Mr SOLANA acting in his capacity as Secretary-General of WEU.
Iz pritožbe je bilo razvidno, da je sporno odločitev sprejel J. SOLANA v vlogi generalnega sekretarja ZEU.
Since WEU is not a Community institution or body, the Ombudsman was not entitled to deal with the complaint.
Ker ZEU ni institucija ali organ Skupnosti, varuh človekovih pravic ni bil pristojen za obravnavo te pritožbe.
Maladministration
Nepravilnosti
The European Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that maladministration is a broad concept and that good administration requires, among other things, compliance with legal rules and principles, including fundamental rights.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic vztrajno zagovarja mnenje, da je nepravilnost širok pojem in da je treba za dobro upravljanje med drugim spoštovati zakonska določila in načela, med katerimi so tudi temeljne pravice.
However, the principles of good administration go further, requiring Community institutions and bodies not only to respect their legal obligations, but also to be service-minded and ensure that members of the public are properly treated and enjoy their rights fully.
Načela dobrega upravljanja pa gredo še dlje ter od institucijin organov Skupnosti zahtevajo ne le spoštovanje zakonskih obveznosti, ampak tudi vestnost pri delu ter ustrezno ravnanje s posamezniki in polno spoštovanje njihovih pravic.
Thus while illegality necessarily implies maladministration, maladministration does not automatically entail illegality.
Če gre pri nezakonitosti v vsakem primeru za nepravilnost, pa nepravilnost sama po sebi ne pomeni nujno nezakonitosti.
Findings of maladministration by the Ombudsman do not therefore automatically imply that there is illegal behaviour that could be sanctioned by a court.2
Ugotovitev varuha človekovih pravic o nepravilnosti sama po sebi ne pomeni nezakonitega ravnanja, ki bi se lahko sodno kaznovalo.2
In response to a call from the European Parliament for a clear definition of maladministration, the Ombudsman o� ered the following definition in his Annual Report 1997:
V odgovor na poziv Evropskega parlamenta, naj varuh človekovih pravic jasno opredeli nepravilnosti, je ta v letnem poročilu za leto 1997 navedel naslednjo opredelitev:
Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Nepravilnosti se pojavijo, kadar javni organ ne ukrepa v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki ga zavezuje.
In 1998, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming this definition.
Evropski parlament je leta 1998 sprejel resolucijo, ki odobrava to opredelitev.
An exchange of correspondence between the Ombudsman and the Commission during 1999 made clear that the Commission has also agreed to the definition. nition.
Dopisovanje med varuhom človekovih pravic in Komisijo v letu 1999 je pokazalo, da se z opredelitvijo strinja tudi Komisija. a.
3, includes again on 12 December 2007 prior to the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon on 13 December 2007the right to good administration as a fundamental right of Union citizenship (Article 41).
3, vključuje razglašena 12. decembra 2007 pred podpisom Lizbonske pogodbe 13. decembra 2007pravico do dobrega upravljanja kot temeljno pravico državljanstva Unije (člen 41).
Article 43 of the Charter contains the right to complain to the European Ombudsman, who provides an external mechanism through which Community institutions and bodies can be called to account for maladministration.
Člen 43 Listine vsebuje pravico do pritožbe pri evropskem varuhu človekovih pravic, ki zagotavlja zunanji mehanizem, prek katerega se lahko institucij e in organi Skupnosti pozovejo, naj odgovarjajo za nepravilnosti.
It is important to recognise that a culture of service to citizens forms an integral part of good administration.
Pomembno je priznati, da je storitvena kultura za državljane sestavni del dobrega upravljanja.
It should not be confused with a culture of blame that encourages defensiveness.
Ne smemo je zamenjevati s kulturo obtoževanja, ki spodbuja obrambno reakcijo.
In this context, it should be noted that the Ombudsman’s inquiries do not constitute a disciplinary or pre-disciplinary procedure.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da preiskava varuha človekovih pravic ni disciplinski ali preddisciplinski postopek.
The Ombudsman’s strategy for promoting a service culture includes not only various proactive initiatives, but extends also to the handling of complaints.
Strategij a varuha človekovih pravic za spodbujanje storitvene kulture ne vključuje samo različne dejavne pobude, temveč zajema tudi obravnavanje pritožb.
An important part of a service culture is the need to acknowledge mistakes when they occur and to put ma4 ers right if possible.
Pomemben del storitvene kulture je potreba po tem, da se napake, kadar se pojavijo, priznajo in po možnosti popravijo.
A prompt apology may be all that is needed to satisfy the complainant, or at least to avoid the need for the Ombudsman to make any formal criticism of the institution concerned.
Pritožnik je lahko zadovoljen že, če hitro prejme opravičilo, ali pa to vsaj zadošča, da varuhu človekovih pravic na institucij o ni treba nasloviti uradne kritične ocene.
An apology from the Council satisfies the complainant
Pritožnik zadovoljen z opravičilom Sveta
An Irish citizen complained to the Ombudsman that the Council had sent him a reply in English.
Irski državljan se je varuhu človekovih pravic pritožil, ker mu je Svet poslal odgovor v angleščini. Trdil je, da bi mu moral Svet odgovoriti v irščini ter se opravičiti njemu in njegovi organizaciji zaradi kršitve člena 21 Pogodbe ES.
In its opinion, the Council acknowledged that its Public Information Unit had replied in English to the complainant’s e-mail which was written in Irish.
Svet je v mnenju priznal, da je njegova služba za obveščanje javnosti na pritožnikovo elektronsko pošto, ki je bila napisana v irščini, odgovorila v angleščini. Za ta neprijetni dogodek se je opravičil in zagotovil prevod odgovora v irščino.
It also stated that it would, in the future, ensure that requests for information in the Irish language would be replied to in that language.
Zatrdil je tudi, da bo v prihodnje poskrbel za to, da se bo na prošnje po informacijah v irskem jeziku odgovarjalo v tem jeziku.
The complainant accepted the Council’s apology and welcomed its commitment to ensure that correspondence in Irish would henceforth be replied to in Irish.
Pritožnik je sprejel opravičilo Sveta in pozdravil njegovo zavezo, da bo na dopise v irščini odslej odgovarjal v tem jeziku.
The Ombudsman closed the case, since the Council had settled the matter to the complainant’s satisfaction.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ta primer zaključil, ker je Svet to zadevo rešil na zadovoljstvo pritožnika.
In more complex cases in which the Ombudsman makes a preliminary finding of maladministration, he tries, if possible, to promote a “friendly solution” that will be acceptable both to the complainant and to the institution or body concerned. It is important to note, however, that the relevant
Varuh človekovih pravic pri zapletenejših primerih, pri katerih predhodno ugotovi nepravilnost, poskusi spodbuditi „sporazumno rešitev“, ki bi bila sprejemljiva za pritožnika in zadevno institucij o ali organ.
) apply only if there appears to be maladministration and if it appears possible that it can be eliminated.
Treba pa je opozoriti, da se ustrezne določbe statuta (člen 3.54) in izvedbene določbe (člen 6.15) uporabljajo samo, če izkaže, da se je zgodila nepravilnost, in če se zdi mogoče, da se ta odpravi.
On 6 September 2001, the European Parliament approved a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which European Union institutions and bodies, their administrations and their o cials should respect in their relations with the public.
Evropski parlament je 6. septembra 2001 potrdil Kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, ki ga morajo institucij e in organi Evropske unije, njihove uprave in njihovi uradniki spoštovati v stikih z javnostmi.
The Code takes account of the principles of European administrative law contained in the case-law of the European courts and draws inspiration from national laws.
Kodeks upošteva načela evropskega upravnega prava iz sodne prakse evropskih sodišč in se zgleduje po nacionalnem pravu držav članic.
Parliament also called on the Ombudsman to apply the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Parlament je k uporabi tega kodeksa pozval tudi varuha človekovih pravic.
The Ombudsman therefore takes account of the rules and principles contained in the Code when examining complaints and in conducting owninitiative inquiries.
Varuh tako upošteva pravila in načela iz kodeksa pri preučevanju pritožb in opravljanju preiskav na lastno pobudo.
Before the Ombudsman can open an inquiry, a complaint from an authorised complainant about maladministration by a Community institution or body must meet further criteria of admissibility.
Pritožba zaradi nepravilnosti institucij e ali organa Skupnosti, ki jo vloži pooblaščena oseba, mora ustrezati še nekaterim merilom dopustnosti, preden lahko varuh človekovih pravic sproži preiskavo.
These criteria, as set out in the pertinent articles of the Statute, specify that:
Ta merila, opredeljena v ustreznih členih statuta, določajo:
1. the author and the object of the complaint must be identified (Article 2(3) of the Statute);
1. da morata biti razvidna avtor in predmet pritožbe (člen 2(3) statuta);
2. the Ombudsman may not intervene in cases before courts or question the soundness of a court’s ruling (Article 1(3) of the Statute);
2. da varuh človekovih pravic ne sme posredovati v primerih pred sodišči ali dvomiti o pravilnosti odločitev sodišč (člen 1(3) statuta);
3. the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the a4 ention of the complainant (Article 2(4) of the Statute);
3. da je treba pritožbo vložiti v dveh letih od datuma, ko se je pritožnik seznanil z dejstvi, na katerih pritožba temelji (člen 2(4) statuta);