natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The complainant’s argument that the UK Treasury does not object to disclosure of the le er of formal notice is incorrect.
Pritožnikov argument, da je ministrstvo za finance Velike Britanije izjavilo, da ne nasprotuje objavi formalnega opomina, ne drži.
The complainant sent a report from The Mail on Sunday newspaper of 10 March 2002, containing the following: “The Treasury, which will respond to the Commission’s charges by the end of April, denied that it was refusing to hand over its reply unless secrecy was guaranteed”.
Pritožnik je priložil poročilo iz časopisa The Mail on Sunday z dne 10. marca 2002, ki pravi: “Ministrstvo za finance, ki bo odgovorilo na obtožbe Komisij e do konca aprila, zanika, da zavrača podajo odgovora, če ne bo zagotovljene tajnosti”.
This clearly refers to the UK authorities’ reply, not the Commission’s le er.
Ta stavek se jasno nanaša na odgovor britanskih oblasti, ne pa na pismo Komisije.
Furthermore, the Commission asked the UK authorities to waive confidentiality in the framework of other requests for access to documents linked to these infringement proceedings, but they have not done so.
Nadalje je Komisij a pozvala britanske oblasti, naj se odrečejo tajnosti pri drugih zahtevah za dostop do dokumentov, povezanih s tem postopkom za ugotavljanje kršitev, česar pa niso storile.
In several judgements, the Court of First Instance has recognised the need for confidentiality in infringement investigations and, hence, justified the refusal to grant access to documents related to such investigations.20 Although this case law refers to the provisions of Commission Decision 94/90, it remains valid, since the wording of the relevant exception has been maintained in Regulation 1049/2001.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v več sodbah priznalo potrebo po tajnosti v raziskavah kršitev in tako utemeljilo zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov, povezanih s takimi raziskavami.20Čeprav se ti primeri opirajo na določbe Sklepa Komisij e 94/90, ostanejo veljavni, ker je besedilo zadevne izjeme v Uredbi 1049/2001 ostalo enako.
The only new feature is the need to balance the harm caused by releasing a document against the public interest in its disclosure.
Edina nova določba je potreba po uravnoteženju škode, ki bi jo povzročila objava dokumenta v nasprotju z javnim interesom.
Compliance with Community law is a vital public interest, which clearly outweighs the interest of the general public in obtaining access to the documents produced and exchanged in the course of the investigation.
Usklajenost z zakonodajo Skupnosti je bistvenega pomena za javnost in jasno pretehta interes splošne javnosti za dostop do dokumentov, ustvarjenih in izmenjanih med preiskavo. Javnost je s pomočjo izjav za javnost obveščena o začetku postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev in o bistvenih vprašanjih.
The public is informed, through press releases, of the fact that infringement proceedings have been launched and of the key questions at stake.
Pritožnik ima pravico do obveščenosti o poteku postopka, začetega z njegovo pritožbo, v skladu s kodeksom Komisij e za obravnavanje pritožb.21
The interest of Names or other parties involved in obtaining access to the documents relating to the infringement procedure is not a public interest in disclosure.
Pritožnik in drugi zasebni vlagatelji bi morali za pridobitev nadomestila za izgube, ki so jih utrpeli, začeti sodni postopek na angleškem sodišču.
The complainant has a right to be informed on the progress of the proceedings that were launched as a result of his complaint, in accordance with the code of conduct adopted by the Commission with regard to the treatment of complaints.21
Komisij a lahko samo skuša zagotoviti, da se bo Velika Britanija ravnala po zakonodaji Skupnosti, in kot zadnji korak toži Veliko Britanijo na Sodišču. Sodišče lahko odloči, da je Velika Britanija kršila določila Pogodbe, kar bi povečalo možnosti uspeha pritožnikove tožbe na angleškem sodišču.
Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on Relations with the Complainant in respect of infringements of Community Law COM(2002) 141 final of 20 March 2002, 2002 OJ C 244/5.
Obvestilo Komisij e Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu Varuhu o odnosih s pritožniki v primeru kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti (COM(2002) 141 končno) z dne 20. marca 2002, 2002 UL C 244/5.
There have been many complaints to the Commission and petitions to the European Parliament concerning possible breaches of Directive 73/239.
Komisij a in Evropski parlament sta prejela mnogo pritožb in peticij v zvezi z domnevnimi kršitvami Direktive 73/239.
By refusing transparency, the Commission prevents complainants and petitioners furthering their case, because they do not know what defence the UK government has entered and so are unable to off er counter arguments or correct misleading statements.
Komisij a z omejevanjem preglednosti preprečuje pritožnikom in avtorjem peticijzagovarjanje njihovih stališč. Ker niso seznanjeni z argumenti britanske vlade, ne morejo ponuditi nasprotnih argumentov ali pojasniti zavajajočih izjav.
The replies to the Commission from the UK government will, inevitably, rely heavily on information provided by Lloyd’s.
Odgovori britanske vlade Komisij i bodo neizogibno temeljili na informacijah, ki jih bo posredovala družba Lloyd’s.
This is of great concern to complainants and petitioners because Lloyd’s have, in the past, been economical with the truth.
To pa pritožnike in avtorje peticij zelo skrbi, saj je bila družba v preteklosti znana po tem, da ni vedno povedala vse resnice.
The continuing non-disclosure of the correspondence leads to the suspicion that it would not stand up to public scrutiny.
Če ti dopisi še dolgo ne bodo dostopni javnosti, se bo začel pojavljati sum, da bi vsebina pisem ne vzdržala kritičnega pregleda javnosti.
If there has been a breach, how has it been possible for it to have continued (and still continue) for so long?
Če se je kršitev dejansko zgodila, kako je potem mogoče, da se je nadaljevala (in se še nadaljuje) tako dolgo?
Publication of the correspondence would remove the impression that the aggrieved Names are being deliberately put at a considerable disadvantage.
Objava dopisov bi zagotovila, da vtis namernega zapostavljanja oškodovanih zasebnih vlagateljev ni resničen.
Furthermore, the exchanges in 1977/78 between the Commission and the UK government concerning the transposition of Directive 73/239 are now 25 years old and can hardly be secret.
Nadalje so dopisi iz let 1977 in 1978 med Komisij o in britansko vlado v zvezi s prenosom Direktive 73/239 v nacionalno zakonodajo zdaj stari že 25 let in tako skoraj ne morejo biti več tajni.
The complainant’s understanding is that it is not now possible to obtain compensation in UK national courts without a judgement of the Court of Justice in favour of the Names.
Pritožnik je mnenja, da zdaj na britanskih nacionalnih sodiščih ni mogoče več dobiti odškodnine brez predhodne sodbe Evropskega sodišča v korist vlagateljev.
An alleged breach of the Directive has already been raised in the UK courts and dismissed as irrelevant.
Na britanska sodišča je bil že vložen zahtevek zaradi zatrjevane kršitve te direktive, vendar je bil zavrnjen.
This issue is res judicata, which means that it cannot be overturned other than by the Court of Justice.
Ta razsodba je res judicata, kar pomeni, da jo lahko spremeni le še Evropsko sodišče.
The complainant’s additional le er
Dodatno pismo pritožnika
On 18 February 2003, the complainant asked the Ombudsman to take account of, in summary, the following:
Pritožnik je dne 18. februarja 2003 Varuha pozval, naj upošteva, v povzetku, naslednje:
At a hearing of the Commi ee on Petitions, Commissioner Bolkestein stated that the Commission would only investigate current alleged breaches of Directive 73/239 and that past failings would not be taken into account.
Na zaslišanju pred Odborom za peticij e je komisar Bolkenstein izjavil, da bo Komisij a preiskala samo zatrjevane sedanje kršitve Direktive 73/239, ne pa tudi preteklih kršitev.
The many complaints and petitions to the Commission and European Parliament from financially damaged members of Lloyd’s relate to past irregularities.
Mnogo pritožb in peticij , ki so jih na Komisij o in Evropski parlament poslali finančno oškodovani člani Lloyd’s, se nanaša na nepravilnosti, ki so se zgodile v preteklosti.
Justice for Lloyd’s members cannot be won in the UK courts without a prior verdict from the Court of Justice that the UK government was at fault.
Člani Lloyd’s ne morejo pričakovati pravice na britanskih sodiščih brez predhodne sodbe Evropskega sodišča, da je bila britanska vlada v zmoti.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnika so bile očitno potrebne nadaljnje preiskave.
The Ombudsman wrote to the Commission concerning the complainant’s argument that the replies to the Commission from the UK government will inevitably rely heavily on information provided by Lloyd’s.
Varuh je Komisij i pisal o argumentu pritožnika, da bodo odgovori britanske vlade Komisij i neizogibno temeljili na informacijah, ki jih bo posredovala družba Lloyd’s.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, if correct, the complainant’s argument implies that confidentiality could adversely affect the conduct of the Article 226 procedure, since the information that the Commission receives via the UK authorities is not subject to critical scrutiny.
Varuh je zato Komisij o pozval, naj posreduje nadaljnje informacij e o postopkih za preverjanje točnosti informacij , ki jih prejema v postopku po členu 226.
The Ombudsman therefore requested the Commission to provide further information concerning the procedures used to check the accuracy of the information that it receives in the Article 226 procedure.
Kar se tiče vprašanja o možnosti, da se pritožniki opredelijo o argumentih držav članic, želi Komisij a opozoriti, da je Sodišče22 jasno odločilo, da v postopkih po členu 226 ES posamezniki niso stranke in se zato ne morejo sklicevati na pravico do poštenega sojenja na podlagi načela audi alteram partem.
By le er dated 6 March 2003, the Ombudsman asked the Commission also to respond to the complainant’s le er of 18 February 2003.
V okviru postopkov po členu 226 tako informacij e držav članic kot tudi druge informacije, vključno z informacijami pritožnika, pregledajo službe Komisije, da bi institucij i omogočile odločanje o usklajenosti primera z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The Commission’s reply contained, in summary, the following points:
Komisij a je mnenja, da države članice od Komisij e upravičeno pričakujejo zaupnost pri preiskavah kršitev, zato je treba najti pravo mero pri objavi informacij pri izvajanju prej omenjene obveznosti.
In the framework of proceedings under Article 226, information provided by Member States is examined by the Commission services as well as any other sources of information, including those provided by the complainant, so as to allow the institution to come to a decision on the conformity of a situation with Community law.
Prvotni primer kršitve, s katerim je povezan primer pritožnika, zadeva zatrjevano nepopolno izvajanje določil Direktive 73/239 pri preudarnem uravnavanju in nadzoru družbe Lloyd’s, še posebej v zvezi z načinom revizije in preverjanjem plačilne sposobnosti.
As the Court has stated in the above mentioned case-law, the Community institutions, when adopting decisions, make use of documents originating with third parties, given that the transparency of the decision-making process and the confidence of citizens in Community administration can be assured by adequate reasoning of those decisions.
Komisij a je britanske oblasti obvestila o svoji zaskrbljenosti predvsem z dvema izčrpnima vprašalnikoma, ki jima je sledil formalni opomin in dodatni formalni opomin, poslan januarja 2002.
Adequate reasoning means that, basing itself on a document originating with a third party, the institution must explain the content of that document in that decision and justify that document’s choice as a basis for that decision.
Čeprav Komisij a informacij e dobiva od britanskih oblasti in ne od družbe Lloyd’s, razume skrb pritožnika, da bodo informacij e britanskih oblasti temeljile na informacijah, ki jih bo posredovala družba Lloyd’s.
The Commission is of the view that the confidentiality which the Member States are entitled to expect of the Commission in infringement investigations, must not be deprived of its substance and therefore the right balance should be found when disclosing information in application of the above mentioned obligation.
Čeprav nima Komisij a nobenega vzroka, da bi dvomila o natančnosti informacij britanskih oblasti, lahko preveri natančnost teh informacij na naslednje načine:
The original infringement case, with which the complainant’s case is associated, concerns alleged failure to apply properly requirements under Directive 73/239 to the prudential regulation and supervision of Lloyd’s, in particular with regard to the auditing arrangements and the verification of solvency.
Službe Komisij e pritožnika lahko prosijo za nadaljnje informacij e in pojasnila na običajen način, se pravi po pošti, faksu, ponavadi pa po telefonu ali elektronski pošti. V nekaterih primerih so se uradniki Komisij e tudi osebno srečali s pritožniki.
The Commission raised its concerns with the UK authorities, primarily through two detailed questionnaires, followed by a le er of formal notice and a supplementary le er of formal notice issued in January 2002.
Komisij a je prejela pritožbe od velikega števila strank. Čeprav so si pritožbe v glavnem podobne, so nekatere stranke o določenih točkah bolje obveščene kot druge.
Although the Commission’s information is received from the UK authorities, not from Lloyd’s, the Commission understands the complainant’s concern that the UK authorities would rely heavily on information provided by Lloyd’s.
Zaradi zagotavljanja učinkovite uporabe omejenih sredstev, se je Komisij a pogosto osredotočila na preverjanje ali pojasnilo določenih točk s tistimi pritožniki, ki imajo o teh točkah največ informacij .
Case T-191/99, Petrie and Others v. Commission, [2001] ECR II-3677.
Primer T-191/99, Petrie in drugi v. Komisij a, [2001] ECR II-3677.
Mention should also be made of the petitions to the European Parliament concerning Lloyd’s.
Sklepi preiskav treba tudi peticije, ki jih je prejel Evropski parlament v zvezi z družbo Lloyd’s.
Some are very extensive: one petition extends to seven A4 lever arch files. files.
Nekatere so zelo obsežne, ena od peticij obsega 7 fasciklov formata A4.
The Commission has also examined or made reference to a wide series of other documents including Official Reports prepared by the UK Parliament, Reports commissioned by the UK Government into Lloyd’s, Reports prepared on behalf of Lloyd’s, Reports on Lloyd’s Disciplinary proceedings, expert books, as well as newspaper or magazine articles.
Komisij a je tudi pregledala ali navedla ogromno drugih dokumentov, vključno z uradnimi poročili britanskega parlamenta, poročili, ki jih je britanska vlada zahtevala v zvezi z družbo Lloyd’s, poročili, pripravljenimi v imenu družbe Lloyd’s, poročili o disciplinskih postopkih družbe Lloyd’s, knjigami izvedencev, kot tudi časopisnimi članki.
The Commission has also been able to access in-house expertise on technical ma ers such as auditing arrangements and legal issues.
Komisij a je tudi prejela notranja strokovna mnenja o tehničnih vprašanjih, kot so načini revizije in pravne zadeve.
Thus, notwithstanding its obligation to respect confidentiality in the conduct of Article 226 EC proceedings and the absence of formal powers to call witnesses and sub-poena documents, the Commission has been able to corroborate to a very great extent the accuracy of information it has received.
Tako je lahko Komisij a v zelo veliki meri preverila natančnost prejetih informacij kljub obveznosti spoštovanja tajnosti pri postopkih po členu 226 ES in pomanjkanju formalnih pooblastil za zasliševanje prič in zahteve za vpogled v dokumente.
The issue of past failings
Vprašanje kršitev v preteklosti
The Commission recognises that improvements to the regulatory and supervisory framework for Lloyd’s have been achieved through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which came into effect on 1 December 2001.
Komisij a se zaveda, da je za izboljšave v okviru uravnavanja in nadzora družbe Lloyd’s odgovoren Zakon o finančnih storitvah in trgih 2000, ki je začel veljati 1. decembra 2001.
The objective of infringement proceedings under EU law is to establish or restore the compatibility of national law with EU law, not to rule on past compatibility or incompatibility.
Cilj postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev v okviru zakonodaje EU je zagotoviti ali obnoviti usklajenost nacionalne zakonodaje z zakonodajo EU, ne pa odločati o usklajenosti ali neusklajenosti v preteklosti.
Consequently, the thrust of the current Commission inquiries relates to the examination and analysis of the application of the new framework under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Zato se sedanje preiskave Komisij e osredotočajo na pregled in analizo izvajanja novih predpisov iz Zakona o finančnih storitvah in trgih 2000.
When he appeared before the Commi ee on Petitions on 22 January 2003, Commissioner Bolkestein emphasised that actions for damages can only be taken at national level.
Na zaslišanju pred Odborom za peticij e 22. januarja 2003 je komisar Bolkenstein poudaril, da so lahko materialne odškodninske tožbe vložene le na nacionalni ravni.
Furthermore, the case law of the Court of Justice confirms that infringement procedures under Article 226 EC aim solely to put an end to the failure to comply with Community law by a Member State, and not to record in abstracto that a failure existed in the past.
Nadalje primeri Sodišča potrjujejo, da skuša postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev po členu 226 ES zgolj zagotoviti, da bo država članica v prihodnje spoštovala zakonodajo Skupnosti, ne pa in abstracto ugotavljati, da se je nekoč zgodila kršitev.
In summary, the complainant’s observations made the following points:
Pripombe pritožnika v povzetku vsebujejo naslednje točke:
Lack of transparency means the complainant has no defence against any incorrect statements in the replies from the UK government to the Commission.
Zaradi nepreglednosti se pritožnik ne more braniti proti morebitnim neresničnim izjavam v odgovorih britanske vlade Komisij i.
The Commission’s recognition that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has achieved improvements to the regulatory and supervisory framework is, in effect, a feeble admission that Directive 73/239 was breached before the Act.
Ko je Komisij a izjavila, da je Zakon o finančnih storitvah in trgih 2000 izboljšal predpise na področju uravnavanja in nadzora, je s tem zgolj priznala, da je bila Direktiva 73/239 pred sprejemom zakona kršena.
Article 226 EC uses mandatory wording: “If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion…” Although the complainant does not seek financial redress from the Commission, the la er is clearly culpable for the delay in ensuring enforcement of Community law.
Člen 226 ES vsebuje obvezujoče besedilo: “Če Komisij a meni, da katera od držav članic ni izpolnila katere od obveznosti iz te pogodbe, poda o zadevi obrazloženo mnenje...” Čeprav pritožnik ne zahteva finančne odškodnine od Komisije, je ta jasno odgovorna za zamudo pri zagotavljanju izvajanja zakonodaje Skupnosti.
The Commission should issue a reasoned opinion stating that the UK government has not complied with Community law over a period of nearly 30 years.
Komisij a bi morala podati obrazloženo mnenje, da britanska vlada skoraj 30 let ni upoštevala zakonodaje Skupnosti.
1.1 The complainant’s final observations make a new allegation that the Commission is culpable for the delay in ensuring enforcement of Directive 73/239 in relation to the Lloyd’s insurance market.
1.1 Pritožnik je v svoji zadnji pripombi izjavil, da je Komisij a odgovorna za zamudo pri zagotavljanju izvajanja Direktive 73/239 v primeru trga zavarovanj družbe Lloyd’s.
The complainant claims that the Commission should issue a reasoned opinion stating that the UK government has not complied with Community law over a period of nearly 30 years.
Pritožnik trdi, da bi morala Komisij a podati obrazloženo mnenje, da britanska vlada skoraj 30 let ni upoštevala zakonodaje Skupnosti.
1.2 The Ombudsman considers that it is not appropriate to delay a decision on the present case in order to inquire into this new allegation and claim.
1.2 Varuh meni, da ni primerno odlašati z odločitvijo v prvem primeru samo zato, da bi lahko preiskali to novo trditev in zahtevo.
The complainant has the possibility to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman.
Pritožnik ima možnost pri Varuhu vložiti novo pritožbo.
Refusal of access to the le er of formal notice of 20 December 2001
Zavrnitev dostopa do formalnega opomina z dne 20. decembra 2001
2.1 The complainant applied to the Commission for public access to a le er of formal notice sent by the Commission to the UK government on 20 December 2001, concerning breaches of Directive 73/239 in relation to the Lloyd’s insurance market.
2.1 Pritožnik je Komisij o prosil za javni dostop do formalnega opomina, ki ga je 20. decembra 2001 Komisij a poslala britanski vladi v zvezi s kršitvami Direktive 73/239 pri trgu zavarovanj družbe Lloyd’s.
The complainant contests the Commission’s refusal to release the le er and argues that the UK Treasury has stated that it has no objection to the le er being made public.
Pritožnik se ne strinja z zavrnitvijo objave pisma s strani Komisij e in trdi, da je britansko ministrstvo za finance izjavilo, da ne nasprotuje objavi pisma.
The complainant also argues that replies to the Commission from the UK government will rely heavily on information provided by Lloyd’s, which has, in the past, been economical with the truth.
Pritožnik tudi poudarja, da bodo odgovori britanske vlade Komisij i temeljili na informacijah, ki jih bo posredovala družba Lloyd’s, ki je bila v preteklosti znana po tem, da ni vedno povedala vse resnice.
2.2 According to the Commission, disclosure of the le er of formal notice would undermine the conduct of its investigation into the supposed infringement.
2.2 Komisij a pravi, da bi razkritje formalnega opomina ogrozilo potek preiskave domnevne kršitve.
The exception to the right of access foreseen in Article 4 (2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 23 therefore applies.
Izjemoma se pravice o dostopu ne da uveljavljati, kar je predvideno v tretji alinei člena 4(2) Uredbe 1049/200123.
The Commission argues that the Lloyd’s case is very complicated and sensitive and that its investigation into a possible infringement by the UK is still ongoing.
Komisij a trdi, da je primer družbe Lloyd’s zelo zapleten in občutljiv ter da preiskava o možni kršitvi s strani Velike Britanije še vedno traja.
The complainant’s argument that the UK Treasury does not object to disclosure of the le er of formal notice is incorrect.
Pritožnikov argument, da je britansko ministrstvo za finance izjavilo, da ne nasprotuje objavi formalnega opomina, ne drži.
The Commission asked the UK authorities to waive confidentiality in the framework of other requests for access to documents linked to these infringement proceedings, but they have not done so.
Komisij a je britanske oblasti pozvala, naj se odrečejo tajnosti v okviru drugih zahtev po dostopu do dokumentov, povezanih s tem postopkom za ugotavljanje kršitev, česar pa niso storile.
The Commission also argues that it has checked the accuracy of information supplied by the UK authorities using a number of identified external sources, as well as in-house expertise on technical ma ers.
Komisij a tudi trdi, da je preverila natančnost informacij britanskih oblasti s pomočjo znanih zunanjih virov, kot tudi notranjih strokovnih mnenj o tehničnih vprašanjih.