natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Council, a copy of the complainant’s examination paper, together with a copy of the notice of competition, would be sent to the complainant the same day.
Po navedbah Sveta je bila pritožniku še isti dan skupaj s kopij o obvestila o razpisu poslana tudi kopij a njegovega testa.
On 5 November 2003, the Ombudsman’s services contacted the complainant by telephone in order to inform him about the Council’s reply and to ascertain if he considered the reply to be satisfactory.
Pritožnika so 5. novembra 2003 po telefonu poklicali iz služb Varuha človekovih pravic in ga obvestili o odgovoru Sveta ter preverili, če je odgovor zanj zadovoljiv. Pritožnik je Varuhu čestital za rezultate preiskave in za doseženi rezultat.
THE DECISION
Komisij a.
Refusal to grant access to marked examination paper and to communicate the evaluation criteria
Zavrnitev dostopa do ocenjenega testa in objave ocenjevalnih meril
1.1 The complainant asked for access to a copy of his marked examination paper in competition Council/A/394 and to be informed about the criteria followed by the Selection Board in the evaluation of the tests.
1.1 Pritožnik je prosil za dostop do kopij e svojega ocenjenega testa iz razpisa Council/A/394 in za informacij e o merilih, ki jih je izbirna komisij a uporabila pri ocenjevanju testov.
The Council refused to comply with these requests.
Svet je zavrnil te zahteve.
The complainant therefore complained to the Ombudsman.
Pritožnik se je zato pritožil Varuhu.
1.2 On 8 July 2003, the Ombudsman addressed, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, a dra recommendation to the Council according to which the Council should
1.2 Varuh je 8. julij a 2003 v skladu s členom 3(6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic na Svet naslovil osnutek priporočila, v skladu s katerim naj bi Svet pritožniku dovolil dostop do njegovega ocenjenega testa in ga obvestil o ocenjevalnih merilih, ki jih je uporabila izbirna komisij a.
1.3 In its detailed opinion, the Council informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to accept his dra recommendation.
Ta pravila veljajo za vse zunanje in notranje izbirne postopke, ki jih organizira generalni sekretariat Sveta.
The Council pointed out that on 17 September 2003 its General Secretariat had set up new rules related to the communication of marked copies to candidates.
Kandidati, ki bodo sodelovali v izbirnih postopkih, objavljenih od 1. septembra 2003 dalje, bodo lahko pridobili kopij o svojega testa in, pri pisnih testih, ocenjevalno polo izbirne komisije.
These rules would apply to all external and internal competitions to be organised by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Za razpise, organizirane pred 1. septembrom 2003, ustrezna pravila določajo, da kandidati, ki to želijo, lahko dobijo tako kopij o svojega testa kot tudi ocenjevalno polo, če jo je izbirna komisij a uporabila.
1.4 As regards the complainant’s case, the Council informed the Ombudsman that a copy of the complainant’s examination paper and of the notice of competition would be sent to the complainant the same day.
1.4 Kar zadeva primer pritožnika, je Svet Varuha obvestil, da je bila pritožniku še isti dan skupaj s kopij o obvestila o razpisu poslana tudi kopij a njegovega testa.
The Council explained that since the evaluation criteria followed by the Selection Board had been set out in point VI.A.d) of the notice of competition, the Selection Board had not drawn up an evaluation sheet.
Svet je pojasnil, da izbirna komisij a ni pripravila ocenjevalne pole, ker so bila ocenjevalna merila, ki jih je uporabila izbirna komisij a, navedena v točki VI.A.d) obvestila o razpisu.
2.1 On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman concludes that the Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s dra recommendation and that the measures taken by the Council to implement it are satisfactory.
2.1 Na podlagi svoje preiskave Varuh zaključuje, da je Svet sprejel osnutek priporočila in da so ukrepi Sveta za njegovo izvajanje zadovoljivi.
COMMISSION TO PROMOTE GOOD ADMINISTRATION IN EUROPEAN SCHOOLS
KOMISIJ A IN PRIZADEVANJA ZA BOLJŠE UPRAVLJANJE V EVROPSKIH ŠOLAH
Decision on complaint 845/2002/IJH against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 845/2002/IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
In May 2002, Mrs L. complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of herself and a group of about 50 parents of children at the European Schools in Brussels.
Gospa L. se je maja 2002 pritožila Varuhu v svojem imenu in v imenu skupine okoli 50 staršev otrok v evropskih šolah v Bruslju.
The complaint concerns the allocation of places at the Schools for the academic year 2002-3, the subsequent appeals that were lodged and the mechanisms for co-ordination between the Schools.
Predmet pritožbe je dodeljevanje prostih mest v šolah za šolsko leto 2002/03, s tem povezani ugovori ter način usklajevanja med šolami.
In summary, the complainants made the following points:
Pripombe pritožnikov v povzetku vsebujejo naslednje točke:
Places available in the new primary section in Ixelles were allocated to pupils currently a ending the two existing primary sections on the basis of two different sets of criteria, which were determined and applied unilaterally and non-transparently by the school of origin.
Prosta mesta v novi osnovni šoli v Ixellesu so bila učencem, ki trenutno obiskujejo dve obstoječi osnovni šoli, dodeljena na podlagi dveh različnih vrst meril, ki jih je dosedanja šola določila in
Decisions following an inquiry
Sklepi preiskav uporabila enostransko in nepregledno.
The action of the schools in this ma er contradicts the basic principles of good administrative practice and therefore breaches Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Delovanje šol v tem primeru nasprotuje osnovnim načelom prakse dobrega upravljanja in zato krši člen 41 Listine Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah.
There is also a breach of Article 24 (2) of the Charter, which states that “In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration”.
Krši tudi člen 24 (2) te listine, ki določa: “Pri vseh ukrepih javnih organov ali zasebnih ustanov, ki zadevajo otroke, se morajo upoštevati predvsem koristi otrok.”
The first criterion for distributing children between schools was the capacity of the three schools, which had been fixed in advance, without reference to the needs of the children or the wishes of their parents.
Prvo merilo pri porazdelitvi otrok med šolami so bile prostorske zmogljivosti treh šol, ki so bile določene vnaprej, brez upoštevanja potreb otrok ali želja njihovih staršev.
The complainants contacted the Commission, which is a member of the Board of Governors and which has the duty of protecting its staff’s rights and interests.
Pritožniki so obvestili Komisijo, ki je članica Sveta guvernerjev in je dolžna ščititi pravice in interese svojih zaposlenih.
The complainants have never had a complete answer or explanation from the direction of the European Schools, the Board of Governors or the Commission.
Pritožniki niso prejeli popolnega odgovora ali pojasnila od vodstva evropskih šol, Sveta guvernerjev ali od Komisije. e.
The complainants fear further chaos when a fourth European School in Brussels is established in future.
Pritožniki se bojijo še večje zmešnjave, ko se bo ustanavljala četrta evropska šola v Bruslju.
In summary, the complainants allege that the action of the European Schools contradicts Articles 24 (2) and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that co-ordination mechanisms between the schools are inadequate.
Pritožniki v povzetku trdijo, da so dejanja evropskih šol v nasprotju s členoma 24 (2) in 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah in da je usklajevanje med šolami neustrezno.
The complainants ask the Ombudsman to do everything in his power to ensure that:
Pritožniki prosijo Varuha, naj stori vse, kar je v njegovi moči, da se zagotovi, da
• a solution is urgently found respecting the best interests of the children involved;
• se nujno poišče rešitev, ki bo kar najbolje upoštevala koristi vpletenih otrok;
• the ma er is fully investigated at the highest level;
• se zadeva razišče na najvišji ravni;
DECISIONSFOLLOWING there is a comprehensive review of the administration of the European Schools to ensure that in future they operate according to the same standards of good governance and good administrative practice that apply to other EU institutions and that, in accordance with Article 24 (2) of the Charter, the best interests of the children are the primary consideration in all actions affecting them;
• bo opravljen celovit pregled uprave evropskih šol, ki bo zagotovil, da bodo v prihodnosti delovale v skladu z enakimi merili dobrega vodenja in dobrega upravljanja, ki veljajo za druge institucij e EU, in da bodo v skladu s členom 24 (2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah pri vseh ukrepih, ki zadevajo otroke, njihove koristi na prvem mestu;
• all the appeals are accepted even if this solution would require spli ing some classes into two;
• se sprejmejo vsi ugovori, tudi če to zahteva delitev razredov na dva dela;
• there is a review of the distribution of resources between schools;
• se pregleda razdelitev sredstev med šolami;
• a clear and transparent system for allocating children between the Schools is established, in order to avoid future transfer of children in similar conditions.
• se vzpostavi jasen in pregleden sistem porazdelitve otrok med šolami, da bi se tako izognili bodočim premestitvam otrok v podobnih okoliščinah.
In dealing with previous complaints against the European Schools, the Ombudsman has taken the view that the 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 financing.
Pri prejšnjih pritožbah zoper evropske šole je Varuh menil, da šole niso institucij a ali organ Skupnosti, vendar pa je Komisij a do neke mere odgovorna za njihovo delovanje, ker je zastopana v Svetu guvernerjev in veliko prispeva k njihovemu financiranju.
The Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s responsibility does not extend to questions concerning the internal management of the Schools.
Varuh je mnenja, da Komisij a ni odgovorna za notranje upravljanje šol.
The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission for an opinion on the present complaint.
Varuh je zato Komisij o prosil za mnenje o tej pritožbi.
In summary, the Commission’s opinion made the following points:
Če povzamemo, vsebuje mnenje Komisij e naslednje točke:
The redistribution of a certain number of pupils between the European Schools in Brussels was the inevitable consequence of two factors.
Prerazdelitev določenega števila učencev med evropskimi šolami v Bruslju je bila neizogibna posledica dveh dejavnikov.
First, the decision by the Board of Governors to open the third School in Ixelles, in order to relieve the Uccle and Woluwe Schools, which were particularly oversubscribed at the time and second, the need to move temporarily a number of pupils from the Uccle School to the Woluwe School as a result of major repair and reconstruction work.
Prvič, odločitev Sveta guvernerjev za odprtje tretje šole v Ixellesu, da bi tako razbremenili šoli v predelih Uccle in Woluwe, ki sta v tistem času imeli preveč prijav, in drugič, potreba po začasni premestitvi določenega števila učencev s šole Uccle na šolo Woluwe zaradi večjih gradbenih del.
In deciding the redistribution of the language sections between the three schools, the Board of Governors sought to ensure that the dual principle of geographical balance and rational utilisation
Svet guvernerjev je pri odločanju o prerazdelitvi jezikovnih oddelkov med temi tremi šolami skušal zagotoviti spoštovanje načel geografske uravnoteženosti in preudarne rabe virov.
To be er manage these movements, the Representative of the Board of Governors set up a coordinated management group for the three Brussels Schools, on which the Heads, the teaching staffand the parents’ associations were represented.
Predstavnik Sveta guvernerjev je za boljše vodenje teh selitev sestavil skupino za usklajeno vodenje treh bruseljskih šol, v kateri so zastopani uprava, učitelji in združenja staršev.
According to the information supplied to the Commission, parental choice was given priority, but the limits imposed by the structure of the school organisation and the need to make optimal use of available resources made it impossible to meet the expectations and requirements of all families.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je prejela Komisij a, so imele prednost želje staršev, vendar je bilo nemogoče ustreči pričakovanjem in zahtevam vseh družin zaradi omejitev v zvezi z organizacij o šol in potrebe po optimalni izrabi razpoložljivih virov.
According to the Schools, it would have been difficult to justify spli ing sections or classes in one School when the corresponding sections and classes in another School were virtually empty.
Po mnenju šol bi bilo težko upravičiti delitev oddelkov ali razredov na eni šoli, če so bili ustrezni oddelki in razredi na drugi šoli skoraj prazni.
The Schools argue that, in their assessment of individual cases, they applied the criteria of the presence of siblings, geographical proximity to the family home and the creation of balanced classes in the three Schools.
Šole trdijo, do so pri odločanju o posameznih primerih upoštevale prisotnost bratov ali sester, oddaljenost od doma in sestavljanje uravnoteženih razredov v vseh treh šolah.
The Heads’ decisions about where to place pupils were based on the information provided by the parents to the School concerning the schooling of siblings and the location of the family home.
Odločitve uprave o dodelitvi učencev so temeljile na informacijah o šolanju bratov ali sester in o oddaljenosti od doma, ki so jih šoli posredovali starši.
The Commission is aware that a significant number of complaints have been submi ed.
Komisij a se zaveda, da je bilo vloženih veliko pritožb.
These complaints have been dealt with individually by commi ees within each School that comprise members of the Administrative Board and parents’ representatives.
Te pritožbe so posamično na vsaki šoli obravnavali odbori, sestavljeni iz članov uprave in predstavnikov staršev.
A large number of the complaints were upheld.
Mnogim pritožbam so ugodili.
In response to the complainants’ requests, the Commission made the following points:
V odgovoru na zahteve pritožnikov je Komisij a navedla naslednje:
The procedure followed and the criteria used by the Schools for the transfer of pupils, along with the possibility of appeal, suggests that the pupils’ best interests were a primary consideration which, as far as possible, was taken into account.
Postopek in merila, ki so jih šole uporabile pri premeščanju učencev, skupaj z možnostjo ugovora kažejo, da so bile na prvem mestu koristi učencev, ki so jih upoštevali, kjer se je le dalo.
During its meeting on 21-23 May 2002, the Board of Governors examined the Report drawn up by its Representative on the “Distribution of pupils from pre-school, primary and secondary cycles between the Brussels I, II and III Schools”.
Na sestanku Sveta guvernerjev od 21. do 23 maja 2003 so preučili poročilo o “porazdelitvi učencev v predšolskem, osnovnošolskem in srednješolskem šolanju med šolami Bruselj I, Bruselj II in Bruselj III”, ki ga je pripravil predstavnik Sveta.
The Commission has not been made aware of any irregularities in this regard.
Komisij a ni bila glede tega seznanjena z nobenimi nepravilnostmi.
The principles laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and particularly its Articles 24 (2) and 41, apply in full to the European Schools and are binding upon them.
Načela, ki jih določa Listina o temeljnih pravicah, še posebej člena 24 (2) in 41, za evropske šole veljajo v celoti in so za njih zavezujoča.
These principles also apply to future reform of the Schools.
Ta načela veljajo tudi za bodočo reformo šol.
According to the information supplied to the Commission, the Schools made every effort to take into account, as a primary consideration, the choices of parents.
Glede na informacije, ki jih je prejela Komisij a, so šole storile vse potrebno, da bi na prvem mestu upoštevale želje staršev.
In fact, efforts were made to adjust the distribution of classes from September 2002, with the ensuing transfer of posts, as well as to derogate from the rules governing the grouping of primary classes during the year 2002/2003 for certain sections.
Šole so dejansko skušale prilagoditi razdelitev razredov od septembra leta 2002 skupaj s posledično prerazdelitvijo mest kot tudi določene oddelke v šolskem letu 2002/2003 izvzeti iz pravil o sestavljanju osnovnošolskih razredov.
Despite these efforts, certain limits imposed by the structure of the school organisation and the need to make optimal use of available resources could not be ignored.
Tem naporom navkljub je bilo treba upoštevati tudi določene omejitve organizacij e šol in potrebo po optimalni izrabi razpoložljivih virov.
Spli ing sections or classes in one School, when corresponding sections and classes in another School were virtually empty, would not have been good administrative practice.
Delitev oddelkov ali razredov na eni šoli, ko so ustrezni oddelki in razredi na drugi šoli skoraj prazni, bi ne bila dobra upravna praksa.
The Board of Governors alone is competent to decide on the distribution of resources between the different European Schools.
Samo Svet guvernerjev lahko odloča o razdelitvi sredstev med različnimi evropskimi šolami.
It must be guided by the principles of geographical balance and the optimal utilisation of available resources.
Pri tem ga morajo voditi načela o geografski uravnoteženosti in o optimalni izrabi razpoložljivih virov.
The participation of the parents’ associations, first in the coordinated management group for the three Brussels Schools, which was set up to be er manage the transfer of pupils, and, subsequently, in the commi ees responsible for examining complaints, is evidence of the transparency of the system.
Sodelovanje združenj staršev, najprej v skupini za usklajeno vodenje treh bruseljskih šol, ki je bila sestavljena z namenom, da bi bolje uredili prerazdelitev učencev, potem pa še v odborih za reševanje pritožb, dokazuje preglednost sistema. To preglednost je treba ohraniti tudi za prihodnje premestitve učencev.
This transparency must be maintained in any future pupil transfers.
Pritožnik je informacij e posredoval Komisij i in jo pozval, naj posreduje v Svetu guvernerjev v imenu otrok in njihovih družin.
The complainant’s observations made, in summary, the following points:
Komisij a trdi, da lahko samo Svet guvernerjev odloča o razdelitvi sredstev med šolami.
The complainant had supplied information to the Commission and requested it to intervene in the Board of Governors on behalf of the children and their families.
To kaže, da se Komisij a ni naučila ničesar in da ne sprejema svoje odgovornosti.
The distribution of resources among schools without a thorough evaluation of the children’s needs is an example of the worst administrative practice.
Komisij a šolam zagotavlja večino sredstev in bi morala postaviti potrebe in interese otrok na prvo mesto.
THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION
OSNUTEK PRIPOROČILA
By decision dated 10 December 2002, the Ombudsman addressed a dra recommendation to the Commission in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
Varuh je v svojem sklepu z dne 10. decembra 2002 na Komisij o v skladu s členom 3 (6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic naslovil osnutek priporočila.
The basis of the drarecommendation was the following:
Osnova za ta osnutek priporočila je bila naslednja:
Allocation of places at the European schools
Dodeljevanje prostih mest na evropskih šolah
1.1 In May 2002, Mrs L. complained in her own name and that of about 50 other parents of children at the European Schools in Brussels concerning the allocation of places for the academic year 2002-3, the subsequent appeals that were lodged and the mechanisms for co-ordination between the Schools.
1.1 Gospa L. se je maja 2002 v svojem imenu in imenu okoli 50 drugih staršev otrok v evropskih šolah v Bruslju pritožila zaradi dodeljevanja prostih mest v šolah za šolsko leto 2002/2003, s tem povezanih ugovorov in načinom usklajevanja med šolami.
They ask the Ombudsman to do everything in his power to ensure that:
Varuha prosijo, naj stori vse, kar je v njegovi moči, da se zagotovi, da:
• a solution is urgently found respecting the best interests of the children involved;
• se nujno poišče rešitev, ki bo kar najbolj upoštevala koristi vpletenih otrok;
• the ma er is fully investigated at the highest level;
• se zadevo razišče na najvišji ravni;
• there is a comprehensive review of the administration of the European Schools to ensure that in future they operate according to the same standards of good governance and good administrative practice that apply to other EU institutions and that, in accordance with Article 24 (2) of the Charter, the best interests of the children are the primary consideration in all actions affecting them;
• bo opravljen celovit pregled uprave evropskih šol, ki bo zagotovil, da bodo v prihodnosti delovale v skladu z enakimi merili dobrega vodenja in dobrega upravljanja, ki veljajo za druge institucij e EU, in da bodo v skladu s členom 24 (2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah pri vseh ukrepih, ki zadevajo otroke, njihove koristi na prvem mestu;
The Commission’s arguments
Argumenti Komisij e
1.2 The Commission stated its awareness of a significant number of complaints.
1.2 Komisij a je izjavila, da se zaveda, da je bilo vloženih veliko pritožb.
These were dealt with individually and a large number were upheld.
Te pritožbe so obravnavali posamično in mnogim pritožbam ugodili.
The procedure and the criteria used by the Schools for the transfer of pupils, along with the possibility of appeal, suggests that the pupils’ best interests were a primary consideration which, as far as possible, was taken into account.
Postopek in merila, ki so jih šole uporabile pri premeščanju učencev, skupaj z možnostjo ugovora kažejo, da so bili na prvem mestu koristi učencev, ki so jih upoštevali, kjer se je le dalo.
The Board of Governors alone is competent to decide on the distribution of resources between the different Schools.
Pri tem ga morajo voditi načela o geografski uravnoteženosti in o optimalni izrabi razpoložljivih virov.
It must be guided by the principles of geographical balance and the optimal
To preglednost je treba ohraniti tudi za prihodnje premestitve učencev.
Efforts were made to adjust the distribution of classes, but spli ing sections or classes in one School, when corresponding sections and classes in another School were virtually empty, would not have been good administrative practice.
1.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da so evropske šole ustanovile države članice, ki so leta 1957 podpisale Statut evropske šole.
The principles laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and particularly its Articles 24 (2) and 41, apply in full to the European Schools and are binding upon them.
Države članice Evropske skupnosti so leta 1994 podpisale konvencijo105, ki razveljavi in nadomesti Statut iz leta 1957.
These principles also apply to future reform of the Schools.
Ta konvencij a je začela veljati 1. oktobra 2002.
The participation of the parents’ associations, first in the coordinated management group for the three Brussels Schools, which was set up to be er manage the transfer of pupils, and, subsequently, in the commi ees responsible for examining complaints, is evidence of the transparency of the system.
1.4 Varuh je dosledno zagovarjal mnenje, da evropske šole niso institucij a ali organ Skupnosti, vendar pa je Komisij a do neke mere odgovorna za njihovo delovanje, ker je zastopana v Svetu guvernerjev in veliko prispeva k njihovemu financiranju.
This transparency must be maintained in any future pupil transfers.
Varuh je mnenja, da Komisij a ni odgovorna za notranje upravljanje šol.