natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Case 2395/2003/GG concerned the question of whether meetings of the Council in its legislative capacity should always be public.
Primer 2395/2003/GG je sprožil vprašanje, ali bi morala biti sreÏanja Sveta vedno javna, kadar zaseda v zakonodajni vlogi.
The Ombudsman considered that the principle that decisions should be taken “as openly as possible” (Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union) applies to the Council.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ocenil, da za Svet velja naÏelo o sprejemanju odloÏitev karseda odprto (Ïlen 1(2) Pogodbe o Evropski un`i).
Article 207 of the EC Treaty (concerning the Council’s adoption of its own rules of procedure) does not provide that the degree to which the Council’s meetings in its legislative capacity are to be open to the public should be regarded as a political choice and leW to the Council’s discretion.
Jlen 207 Pogodbe ES (v zvezi s postopkovnimi pravili, ki jih je zase uvedel Svet) ne predvideva, da bi lahko Svet o stopnji, do katere morajo biti njegova sreÏanja v zakonodajni vlogi odprta za javnost, politiÏno odloÏal in presojal sam.
New Rules of Procedure adopted by the Council in 2000 already provided for increased openness of its legislative meetings, thus making clear that steps to increase the transparency of its legislative activity had to, and could be, taken under Community law as it presently stands.
Novi poslovnik, ki ga je Svet sprejel leta 2000, je pri sreÏanjih zakonodajnega znaÏaja že omogoÏil veÏjo odprtost, tako da se v skladu z obstojeÏo zakonodajo Skupnosti lahko in morajo sprejeti koraki za poveÏanje preglednosti zakonodajne dejavnosti Sveta.
The Ombudsman therefore made a Special Report to the European Parliament.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je zato sestavil posebno poroÏilo Evropskemu parlamentu, v katerem je priporoÏil, naj Svet znova preuÏi svojo odloÏitev, da se v zakonodajni vlogi ne bo vedno sreÏeval javno.
The Report recommended that the Council should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity.
EVOP je odgovoren za to, da instituc` e in organi Skupnosti pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov spoštujejo temelje pravice in svobošÏine posameznikov, še posebej njihovo pravico do zasebnosti.
Complaints concerning data protection and cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor
Te so pokazale, da bi morala doloÏena instituc` a ali organ v odgovoru upoštevati delovni dokument št. 1 varuha osebnih podatkov iz jul` a 2005, ki nosi naslov Javni dostop do dokumentov in varstvo podatkov.
In case 224/2004/PB, the Ombudsman found that a Commission Representation had failed to comply with certain requirements of Regulation 45/20018in communicating with the complainant.
Decembra 2005 je pomoÏnik EVOP-a varuha Ïlovekovih pravic obvestil o svojem sklepu glede pritožbe proti eni izmed instituc` Skupnosti. V sklepu je upošteval posebno poroÏilo varuha Ïlovekovih pravic v primeru 2485/2004/GG, v katerem je šlo za enake okolišÏine.
The Ombudsman’s decision on the case included some general comments on the Ombudsman’s provision of information to, and possible consultation with, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), who is responsible for ensuring, with respect to the processing of personal data, that Community institutions and bodies respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons and in particular their right to privacy.
Jlen 226 Pogodbe doloÏa splošni postopek, po katerem lahko Komis` a razišÏe, ali so države Ïlanice kršile pravo Skupnosti, in primere posreduje SodišÏu Evropskih skupnosti. Komis` a lahko ukrepa na lastno pobudo, na podlagi pritožb ali na zahtevo Evropskega parlamenta, naj obravnava petic`e, naslovljene na Parlament v skladu s Ïlenom 194 Pogodbe ES.
Regulation (EC) 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.
Uredba (ES) 45/2001 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v instituc`ah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL 2001 L 8, str. 1
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE pravic oceni, da bi bilo ustrezno pritožbo posredovati Komis`i, da jo bo obravnavala v skladu s postopkom iz Ïlena 226.
The Ombudsman subsequently consulted the EDPS in two cases and informed him of three other cases in which the Ombudsman had made further inquiries which suggested that the reply of the institution or body concerned should take account of the EDPS’s Background Paper No 1 of July 2005 on Public access to documents and data protection.
Kar zadeva postopkovne obveznosti Komis` e do pritožnikov, služi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic kot oporna toÏka sporoÏilo, ki ga je Komis` a izdala leta 2002.10 SporoÏilo vsebuje zahtevo, da vse pritožbe v register vpiše generalni sekretariat Komis`e, kar je pomembno zagotovilo za dobro delovanje pri nadaljnji obravnavi primera.
All fi ve cases were still under inquiry at the end of 2005.
V 3. toÏki sporoÏila je natanÏno navedeno, kdaj generalni sekretariat prejetih pisem ni dolžan evidentirati kot pritožb.
In December 2005, the Assistant EDPS informed the Ombudsman of his decision on a complaint against a Community institution.
Tretje poglavje vsebuje povzetke desetih odloÏb, ki prikazujejo, kako varuh Ïlovekovih pravic obravnava pritožbe zoper Komis` o v njeni vlogi „varuha Pogodbe“.
The decision of the Assistant EDPS took into account the Ombudsman’s Special Report in case 2485/2004/GG, which concerned the same circumstances.
V nadaljevanju je omenjenih šest teh primerov.
The Commission as guardian of the Treaty
Tr`e primeri so bili zakljuÏeni, ker je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da nadaljnja preiskava ni upraviÏena.
Article 226 of the EC Treaty creates a general procedure under which the Commission may investigate and refer to the Court of Justice possible infringements of Community law by Member States.
V primeru 274/2004/JMA se je Komis` a opraviÏila za zamudo pri posredovanju podatkov pritožniku, ki je želel vedeti, kakšen napredek je bil dosežen pri obravnavi pritožbe v zvezi z uporabo fi na n Ï ne pomoÏi EU.
The Commission may open investigations on its own initiative, on the basis of complaints, or in response to requests from the European Parliament to deal with petitions addressed to Parliament under Article 194 of the EC Treaty.
Podana je bila tudi dodatna pripomba, da bi Komis` a lahko v prihodnje bolje pojasnila svoje postopke v tovrstnih primerih.
Complaints that are outside the mandate of the European Ombudsman o W en concern alleged infringements of Community law by Member States.
V primeru 3452/2004/JMA in drugih primerih je pritožnike skrbelo, da bo naÏin, na katerega Komis` a izvaja postopek po Ïlenu 226, ogrozil prosto izposojo knjig iz javnih knjižnic v Špan`i.
Many such cases can best be handled by another member of the European Network of Ombudsmen.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je preiskavo zakljuÏil, potem ko je bil obvešÏen, da je Komis` a zadevo predložila SodišÏu Evropskih skupnosti.
In some cases, however, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to transfer the complaint to the Commission to be dealt with under the Article 226 procedure. Section 2.5 above gives examples of both approaches.
Vendar je preiskava do te toÏke razjasnila razloge za ukrepanje Komis` e in v sodelovanju z evropskim omrežjem varuhov Ïlovekovih pravic pokazala tudi na možnosti za pravilno izvajanje zadevne direktive Skupnosti.
As regards the Commission’s procedural obligations towards complainants, the Ombudsman’s main point of reference is a Communication issued by the Commission in 200210.
V primeru 3254/2004/ID je šlo za ukrepanje Komis` e v zvezi s pritožbo o nepriznavanju poklicnih kvalifi kac` . Pritožnik je v isti zadevi zaÏel sodni postopek proti nacionalnim oblastem pred nacionalnimi sodišÏi.
The Communication’s requirement that all complaints be registered by the Secretariat-General of the Commission is an important guarantee of good administration in their subsequent handling.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je primer zakljuÏil, saj bi ocenjevanje ustreznosti pritožbe proti Komis` i pripeljalo do obravnave vprašanj o tolmaÏenju in izvajanju nacionalne zakonodaje, enakih tistim, ki jih je pritožnik sprožil pred nacionalnimi sodišÏi, s tem pa bi prišlo do podvajanja postopkov.
Point 3 of the Communication contains a well-defined list of circumstances in which the Secretariat-General is entitled not to register correspondence as a complaint.
Pritožnik je bil vabljen, da pritožbo obnovi po zakljuÏku nacionalnih sodnih postopkov.
Chapter 3 contains summaries of ten decisions that illustrate how the Ombudsman deals with complaints against the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaty.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je preuÏil pravne razloge Komis` e glede ustreznosti dveh pritožb na podlagi Ïlena 226.
A critical remark was made in case 2229/2003/MHZ (also mentioned in 2.8.1 above) because the Commission had oTered only a general explanation for its delay in completing its investigation of an Article 226 complaint, rather than referring to factors specific to the case.
V primeru 1687/2003/JMA so pritožniki ugovarjali odloÏitvi Komis`e, da zavrne njihovo pritožbo proti Špan`i zaradi diskriminac`e na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti.
Three cases were closed because the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries were justified. ed.
Po preuÏitvi zadevnega zakonodajnega okvira je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic kot razumno ocenil stališÏe Komis`e, da so specifiÏni problemi, s katerimi se sreÏujejo pritožniki, zunaj podroÏja uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti.
In case 274/2004/JMA, the Commission apologised for the delay in providing information that the complainant had requested about progress in dealing with a complaint concerning the use of EU financial assistance.
V primeru 1273/2004/GG je pritožnik trdil, da je Komis` a kršila zakon in bila nedosledna pri reševanju nesporazuma glede vprašanja, kdaj je zaÏela veljati Uredba Skupnosti o ribolovu v vodah okoli Azorskih otokov. Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je uredbo preuÏil in ocenil, da je bila razlaga Komis` e napaÏna in v neskladju s stališÏem, ki ga je Komis` a sprejela predhodno.
In case 3452/2004/JMA and others, the complainants were concerned that the Commission’s use of the Article 226 procedure threatened to undermine free lending of books from public libraries in Spain.
V primeru 933/2004/JMA, ki sicer ni izhajal iz Ïlena 226, se je obravnavalo vlogo Komis` e kot varuha temeljnih naÏel in vrednot Un`e v odnosih s tretjimi državami. Pritožnik je menil, da bi morala Komis` a uveljavljati „klavzulo o Ïlovekovih pravicah” in zaÏasno zamrzniti sporazum o sodelovanju
Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.
SporoÏilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti, UL 2002 C 244, str. 5.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE z Vietnamom.
However, the inquiry up to that point was successful in clarifying both the reasons for the Commission’s action and, through cooperation with the European Network of Ombudsmen, the possibilities for correct implementation of the relevant Community Directive.
Instituc` e in organi Skupnosti sklepajo pogodbe o dobavi blaga in storitev, potrebnih za izvajanje njihovih nalog, ter o dodeljevanju podpore in subvenc` v razliÏnih programih EU.11
Case 3254/2004/ID concerned the Commission’s handling of a complaint about non-recognition of professional qualifications.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic lahko obravnava pritožbe o sklenitvi (ali zavrnitvi) pogodb ter o njihovem upravljanju.
The complainant also took legal action against the national authorities in the national courts about the same mamer.
V primerih morebitne kršitve pogodbe pa mora preiskavo omejiti na to, da preveri, ali sta instituc` a oziroma organ Skupnosti zagotovila skladno in razumno pravno podlago za svoja dejanja in zakaj verjameta, da je njun pogled na pogodbeni položaj utemeljen.
The Ombudsman closed the case, since an assessment of the merits of the complaint against the Commission would have involved examination of the same questions about the interpretation and application of national legislation that the complainant had brought before the national courts and would therefore have duplicated the lamer proceedings.
V tretjem poglavju so povzetki šestnajstih odloÏb, ki prikazujejo, kako varuh Ïlovekovih pravic obravnava tovrstne pritožbe.
The complainant was invited to renew the complaint once the national legal proceedings had been completed.
V nadaljevanju jih je omenjenih enajst.
The Ombudsman reviewed the Commission’s legal reasoning on the merits of two Article 226 complaints.
Dve odloÏbi sta se nanašala na primera, ko je predstavništvo Komis` e v državi Ïlanici pritožniku dalo ustno obljubo o zagotovitvi sredstev.
In case 1687/2003/JMA, the complainants contested the Commission’s rejection of their complaint against Spain concerning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
Komis` a je primer 501/2005/IP rešila sama, in sicer s plaÏilom pritožniku, medtem ko je v primeru 2111/2002/MF varuhova preiskava pripeljala do sporazumne rešitve, ki je zajemala precej visoko odškodnino.
AWer reviewing the relevant legal framework, the Ombudsman found that the Commission’s position that the specific problems encountered by the complainants fell outside the scope of Community law appeared reasonable.
V primeru 732/2004/ELB je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da je Komis` a oÏitno prepustila odgovornost za dobro upravljanje Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj državam Ïlanicam, med drugim ob predpostavki, da so sistemi upravljanja in nadzora držav Ïlanic ustrezni in sposobni zagotoviti pravoÏasno izplaÏevanje plaÏil za to odgovornih organov.
In case 1273/2004/GG, the complainant alleged legal error and inconsistency by the Commission in dealing with a dispute concerning the date at which a Community Regulation governing fishing in the waters surrounding the Azores had entered into force.
Preiskava varuha Ïlovekovih pravic v zvezi s pritožbo nekega malega podjetja (primer 530/2004/GG) je pokazala na splošen problem, s katerim se sreÏujejo podizvajalci: pogodbeni okvir namreÏ od glavnega pogodbenika ne zahteva in ga ne spodbuja k temu, da bi v imenu podizvajalcev zahteval obresti v primeru, ko Komis` a s plaÏilom zamuja.
The Ombudsman analysed the Regulation and took the view that the Commission’s interpretation was erroneous and inconsistent with a position that it had adopted earlier.
Komis` a je v odgovoru dejala, da bo v prihodnjih tipskih pogodbah poskušala upoštevati interes malih in srednje velikih podjet` , in sicer v tolikšni meri, kolikor je to v skladu s fi na n Ï ni mi interesi Skupnosti in obstojeÏimi zakonskimi doloÏbami.
Although not an Article 226 complaint, case 933/2004/JMA concerned the Commission’s role as guardian of the fundamental principles and values of the Union in relations with third countries.
Vprašanje v zvezi s pogoji tipskih pogodb se je pojavilo tudi v primeru 338/2004/OV, v katerem je pritožnik, nevladna organizac` a, zahteval, naj Komis` a uvede strožje ukrepe za prepreÏevanje oglasov za službo, ki nakazujejo namero diskriminac`e na podlagi jezika.
According to the complainant, the Commission should have invoked the “human rights clause” to suspend the 1996 cooperation agreement with Vietnam.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic se je strinjal z razlago Komis`e, zakaj v svoje pogodbe ne vkljuÏi posebnih klavzul proti tovrstni diskriminac`i.
The Ombudsman found the Commission’s explanation for not suspending the agreement to be reasonable on the basis of the criteria set out in the Commission’s 1995 Communication on the inclusion of a “human rights clause” in agreements with third countries.
Prav tako je predlagal, naj Komis` a vsakršen dokaz o jezikovni diskriminac`i, za katero je odgovoren eden od njenih pogodbenikov ali upraviÏencev, posreduje pristojnim nacionalnim oblastem ali osebo, ki je predložila dokaze, napoti na ustrezen organ.
Tenders, contracts and grants
Štiri odloÏbe so se nanašali na pritožbe glede sklenitve pogodb o podpori.
Community institutions and bodies use contracts both to obtain the goods and services needed to perform their functions and as an instrument to govern grants and subsidies that they provide under a variety of EU programmes11
V dveh primerih je pritožnik oporekal utemeljitvi sklepa o zavrnitvi vloge za podporo.
The Ombudsman can deal with complaints about the award (or non-award) of contracts and about the management of contracts.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je sprejel stališÏe, da se mora pri presoji razlogov za zavrnitev omejiti na ugotovitev, ali je šlo za oÏitno napako (primera 1365/2004/TN in 758/2004/ELB).
However, where a question of possible breach of contract arises, the Ombudsman limits his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body has provided a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified. ed.
V slednjem primeru je ocenil, da pomanjkanje mehanizmov za pritožbo glede ocene neodvisnih strokovnjakov samo po sebi še ni strukturna ali sistemska nepravilnost.
Chapter 3 contains summaries of 16 decisions that illustrate how the Ombudsman deals with complaints of this kind. Eleven of the cases will be mentioned further here.
Glede posebnih okolišÏin primera 2411/2003/MHZ je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da bi morala Komis` a nevladni organizac` i bolje svetovati, in sicer tako, da bi jo opozorila na osnovne pogoje, ki jih je treba izpolnjevati pri potegovanju za doloÏeno vrsto podpore. V primeru
Complaints relating to employment contracts are dealt with in sub-section 2.8.4.
Pritožbe, povezane s pogodbami o zaposlitvi, so obravnavane v pododdelku 2.8.4.
In case 2673/2004/PB, the Ombudsman found the Commission’s explanation of its decision to exclude profit-making entities from eligibility for a particular call for proposals to be reasonable.
2673/2004/PB je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic kot smiselno ocenil razlago Komis`e, da fi z i Ï ne in pravne osebe, ki dosegajo dobiÏek, niso upraviÏene do sodelovanja na razpisu za zbiranje predlogov.
Two decisions concerned the Commission’s compliance with tender procedures.
V dveh odloÏbah se je pojavljalo vprašanje, ali Komis` a ustrezno izvaja javne razpise.
In 1808/2004/JMA, the complainant questioned the propriety of a telephone conversation that had taken place between the Commission services and a rival bidder.
V primeru 1808/2004/JMA se je pritožnik spraševal o primernosti telefonskega pogovora med službami Komis` e in konkurenÏnim ponudnikom.
The Ombudsman found no evidence of impropriety but noted that it would have been easier for the Commission to have dealt with the complainant’s concerns if it had been able to produce a wrimen record of the telephone conversation in question.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni našel dokazov o neprimernosti, je pa menil, da bi Komis` a pritožnika lažje pomirila, Ïe bi mu lahko ponudila pisni zapis zadevnega telefonskega pogovora.
The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the Commission review its internal rules on telephone logs in the framework of calls for tender.
Zato ji je predlagal, naj ponovno preuÏi svoja pravila o zapisu telefonskih pogovorov v okviru javnih razpisov.
Case 538/2004/TN raised a question as to whether a bidder was entitled to insist that the Commission should strictly enforce a requirement concerning the number of copies of each tender that had to be submimed.
V primeru 538/2004/TN se je pojavilo vprašanje, ali ima ponudnik pravico zahtevati, naj Komis` a natanÏno izpolnjuje pravilo o številu izvodov, ki jih je treba predložiti pri javnem razpisu.
The Commission adopted the position that correct application of its Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures did not require it to consider as inadmissible a bid that had not been submimed in the number of copies specified in the call for tenders.
Komis` a je sprejela stališÏe, da v njenem vodniku za postopke javnih naroÏil (Vade Mecum) ni zahteve za zavrnitev ponudbe, ki ni bila izdana v številu izvodov, navedenem v javnem razpisu.
The Ombudsman suggested that, to avoid the possible appearance of unfairness to bidders who do submit the correct number of copies, the Commission could re-examine the relationship between the Vade Mecum and calls for tenders in this regard. The Commission’s response referred to the principles of proportionality, equal
Da se ponudniki, ki so predložili ustrezno število izvodov, ne bi Ïutili ogoljufanih, je varuh Komis` i predlagal, da v zvezi s tem vprašanjem ponovno preuÏi razmerje med vodnikom in javnimi razpisi.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES treatment, nondiscrimination and broadest competition, laid down in Article 89 of the Financial Regulation.
Komis` a se je v odgovoru sklicevala na naÏela sorazmernosti, enake obravnave, nediskriminac`e in najširšega možnega kroga ponudnikov, kot so navedena v Ïlenu 89 fi na n Ï ne uredbe.
This sub-section concerns decisions on complaints about: recruitment to, and work relationships with, the EU institutions and bodies; personnel mamers arising under EU-funded contracts; and traineeships with the EU institutions.
V podrazdelku so obravnavane pritožbe v zvezi z zaposlovanjem in delovnimi razmerji, sklenjenimi z instituc`ami in organi EU, kadrovskimi zadevami, povezanimi s pogodbami, ki ji financira EU, in prakso v instituc`ah EU.
Section 2.8.1 above has already noted that three cases were closed in which draW recommendations had been made concerning the information available to candidates in recruitment competitions (see summary of case 2097/2003/PB in section 3.1.3 below).
V razdelku 2.8.1 je bilo že omenjeno, da je varuh v treh primerih napisal osnutek priporoÏila glede podatkov, ki so kandidatom na voljo v nateÏajih za zaposlitev (glejte povzetek primera 2097/2003/PB v razdelku 3.1.3).
Chapter 3 contains 15 other summaries of decisions in this category.
V tretjem poglavju je petnajst drugih povzetkov odloÏb na to temo.
Five of the cases gave rise to friendly solutions and two others were semled by the institution.
V petih primerih se je našla sporazumna rešitev, v dveh drugih primerih pa je zadevo rešila instituc`a.
Six cases will be mentioned further here.
V nadaljevanju je omenjenih šest primerov.
In case 839/2004/MHZ, the Ombudsman suggested that, to avoid misunderstandings and improve relations with candidates, EPSO could make explicit in future notices of competition (i) that an invitation to am end pre-selection tests does not imply that the candidate’s eligibility has been fully checked and (ii) that the wrimen tests of candidates who are subsequently found to be ineligible will not be marked.
V primeru 839/2004/MHZ je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic predlagal, naj ESPO, da bi se izognil nesporazumom in izboljšal odnose s kandidati, v prihodnjih objavah nateÏajev izrecno navede, (i) da vabilo k predizbirnim preskusom, ki ga prejme kandidat, še ne pomeni, da je bilo v celotni preverjeno, ali kandidat ustreza pogojem, ter (ii) da se pisnih preskusov kandidatov, ki ne ustrezajo pogojem, ne bo ocenjevalo.
EPSO subsequently announced that future notices of competition would indeed mention these two points.
EPSO je pozneje sporoÏil, da bosta v prihodnjih objavah nateÏajev ti zadevi omenjeni.
In case 2107/2002/PB, the Commission accepted, with eT ect from 1 March 2005, a draW recommendation to abolish its age limit for traineeships.
V primeru 2107/2002/PB je Komis` a sprejela osnutek priporoÏila in s 1. marcem 2005 odpravila starostno omejitev za opravljanje prakse.
The Ombudsman announced that a further own-initiative inquiry into the practices of other institutions and bodies in this regard will be launched in the future.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je sporoÏil, da bo sprožil nadaljnjo preiskavo na lastno pobudo glede delovanja drugih instituc` in organov.
Two decisions dealt with the termination of employment contracts.
Dve odloÏbi sta se nanašali na prenehanje pogodbe o zaposlitvi.