natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the complainants, the auditor of the Court of Auditors told the ICCR that it is up to the Commission to decide whether the report is transmi ed to the ICCR.
Po navedbah pritožnikov je revizor Računskega sodišča ICCR-ju povedal, da se Komisij a sama odloči, ali bo poročilo posredovala ICCR-ju.
The complainants maintain that the points of view of the ICCR were not taken into account by the auditors.
Pritožnika še vedno menita, da revizorji niso upoštevali stališč ICCR-ja.
The complainants stress that the ICCR never claimed that the delay in handling their case was only the fault of the Court of Auditors, but rather the combined effect of the non-transparent procedures of the Commission and the Court of Auditors and their interfaces.
Poudarila sta tudi, da ICCR nikoli ni trdil, da je za zamudo v obravnavanju njihovega primera bilo krivo le Računsko sodišče, temveč bolj skupen učinek nepreglednih postopkov Komisij e in Računskega sodišča in njunih posrednikov.
The complainants maintain that the delays affected the ICCR’s interests as the present case had not been se led more than one year a er the audit took place.
Pritožnika še vedno menita, da so zamude vplivale na interese ICCR-ja, saj trenutni primer ni bil rešen več kot eno leto po reviziji. i.
Further inquiries
NADALJNJE PREISKAVE
On 14 October and 5 November 2003, the European Ombudsman’s secretariat contacted by telephone one of the complainants who spoke on behalf of both complainants regarding the observations received on 29 September 2003.
14. oktobra in 5. novembra 2003 se je tajništvo Evropskega varuha po telefonu pogovarjalo z enim od pritožnikov, ki je v imenu obeh pritožnikov govoril o pripombah, prejetih 29. septembra 2003.
The complainants confirmed that the Commission had proceeded to pay the outstanding final payment.
Pritožnika sta potrdila, da je Komisij a izvršila neporavnano končno plačilo.
The complainants had accepted the Commission’s interpretation of transfers between cost categories which require prior authorisation according to Article 17(4) of the General Conditions .
Pritožnika sta sprejela razlago Komisij e o prenosu med stroškovnimi razredi, ki v skladu s členom 17(4) splošnih pogojev zahteva predhodno odobritev.
Therefore, the amount of about € 9,000 could not be included in the final payment.
Zato znesek v višini 9.000 € ni mogel biti vključen v končno plačilo.
The complainants informed the Ombudsman’s secretariat that the ICCR had not sent any comments on the Commission’s le er of 14 July 2003, in which the Commission offered a se lement and informed that unless it receives comments from the complainants within one month, the project will be officially closed and no further costs can be claimed.
Pritožnika sta tajništvo Evropskega varuha obvestila, da ICCR ni poslal nobenih pripomb na pismo Komisij e z dne 14. julij a 2003, kjer je Komisij a ponudila poravnavo in jih obvestila, da bo, razen če v roku enega meseca prejme pripombe s strani pritožnikov, projekt uradno zaključen in ne bo mogoče zahtevati nadaljnjih stroškov.
The complainants confirmed that by not commenting on the se lement off er made by the Commission, the ICCR had de facto accepted that no interest would be paid for the suspended final payment.
Pritožnika sta potrdila, da je ICCR s tem, da ni podal pripomb na predlagano poravnavo s strani Komisije, de facto sprejel, da obresti za zadržano končno plačilo ne bodo izplačane.
The complainants were satisfied with the se lement of the final payment.
Pritožnika sta bila zadovoljna s poravnavo končnega plačila.
THE DECISION
Sklepi preiskav
1.1 In their observations, the complainants argue that this case raises general issues concerning delays by two Community institutions in responding to repeated requests for information and the length of the procedure.
1.1 Pritožnika v svojih pripombah trdita, da ta primer odpira splošna vprašanja o zamudah v dveh institucijah Skupnosti pri odgovarjanjih na ponavljane zahteve po informacijah in trajanju postopka.
1.2 The Ombudsman understands the complainants to be concerned about the general issue of procedures where two or more Community institutions conduct simultaneous inquiries or procedures affecting the handling of a case.
1.2 Varuh razume zaskrbljenost pritožnikov zaradi splošnega vprašanja postopkov, kjer sočasno vodenje preiskav ali postopkov dveh ali več institucij Skupnosti vpliva na obravnavo primera.
The Ombudsman considers that this general issue cannot be dealt with effectively in the framework of the present inquiry.
Varuh meni, da se to splošno vprašanje ne more učinkovito reševati v okviru trenutne preiskave.
The complainants have the possibility to present a new complaint to the Ombudsman, if they wish to do so.
Pritožnika lahko Varuhu predstavita novo pritožbo, če tako želita.
Alleged lack of information by the Commission regarding the status of the audit and of the final payment
Domnevno pomanjkljive informacij e s strani Komisij e glede stanja revizije in končnega plačila
2.1 The complainants allege lack of information by the Commission regarding the status of the audit and the final payment.
2.1 Pritožnika trdita, da sta glede stanja revizije in končnega plačila s strani Komisij e bila deležna pomanjkljivih informacij .
2.2 According to the Commission, it informed the complainants on 28 February 2002 about the situation regarding the final payment and its examination in the context of this audit a er the complainants had sent an email on 26 February 2002.
2.2 Komisij a pravi, da je pritožnika po tem, ko sta 26. februarja 2002 poslala e-pošto, 28. februarja 2002 obvestila o stanju končnega plačila in preverjanju v sklopu te revizije.
Ongoing discussions with the ICCR were initiated in the summer 2002.
Razprave z ICCR-jem so se začele poleti 2002.
In August 2002, the Commission confirmed to the complainants that all payments were suspended due to an audit by the Court of Auditors.
12. julij a 2002 sta pritožnika zahtevala informacij o o stanju končnega plačila.
On 29 August 2002, the complainants made a request to the Commission to reconsider their case.
Avgusta 2002 je Komisij a pritožnikoma potrdila, da so bila vsa plačila zaradi revizije Računskega sodišča zadržana.
On 5 December 2002, the Commission requested additional information from the complainants.
29. avgusta sta pritožnika od Komisij e zahtevala, naj ponovno pretehta njun primer.
On 11 February 2003, a er having received the requested additional information, the Commission sent an acknowledgement of receipt containing a holding le er.
5. decembra 2002 je Komisij a od pritožnikov zahtevala dodatne informacije.
On 13 May 2003, the Commission informed the complainants that it had initiated the procedure for the final payment.
Komisij a je 11. februarja 2003, po tem, ko je prejela zahtevane dodatne informacije, poslala potrdilo o prejemu, ki je vsebovalo standardno pismo.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
13. maja 2003 je Komisij a obvestila pritožnika, da je sprožila postopek za končno plačilo.
2.3 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission has provided the complainants with information about the status of the audit to the extent that the audit affected the Commission’s procedure for making the outstanding final payment.
2.3 Varuh meni, da je Komisij a pritožnikoma posredovala toliko informacij o stanju revizije, da je revizija vplivala na postopek Komisij e o izplačilu neporavnanega končnega plačila.
Furthermore, the Commission appears to have adequately informed the complainants about the suspension of the final payment.
Komisij a je pritožnika tudi ustrezno obvestila o zadržanju končnega plačila.
Therefore, there appears to be no instance of maladministration by the Commission as regards this allegation.
Zato s strani Komisij e v zvezi s to trditvijo ni bilo nepravilnosti.
Alleged non-payment of the outstanding final payment with interest and the claim for se lement
Domnevno neplačilo neporavnanega končnega plačila z obrestmi in zahteva po poravnavi
3.1 The complainants allege that the Commission has not made the outstanding final payment of € 80,671.61 for Thematic Network contract No. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANSTALK” under the Fi h Framework Programme.
3.1 Pritožnika trdita, da Komisij a ni izvršila neporavnanega končnega plačila v višini 80.671,61 € za Pogodbo vsebinske mreže št. 1999-TN.10869 “TRANS-TALK” pod petim okvirnim programom.
According to the Commission, the amount of € 29,799.63 could not be taken into account since this would involve transfer between cost categories, which requires prior authorisation.
Po mnenju Komisij e se znesek v višini 29.799,63 € ni mogel upoštevati, saj bi to vključevalo prenos med stroškovnimi razredi, kar zahteva predhodno odobritev.
3.3 In the observations, the complainants inform the Ombudsman that, following their reply to the Commission dated 27 May 2003, the Commission had proceeded to pay the sum of € 20,447.79.
3.3 V pripombah, ki so sledile odgovoru Komisij i z dne 27. maja 2003, sta pritožnika Varuha obvestila, da je Komisij a izvedla plačilo zneska v višini 20.447,79 €.
3.4 The European Ombudsman’s secretariat contacted by telephone one of the complainants who spoke on behalf of both complainants regarding the observations.
3.4 Sekretariat Evropskega varuha se je po telefonu pogovarjal z enim od pritožnikov, ki je v imenu obeh govoril o pripombah.
The complainants had accepted the Commission’s interpretation of transfers between cost categories which require prior authorisation according to Article 17(4) of the General Conditions.
Pritožnika sta sprejela interpretacijo Komisij e o prenosu med stroškovnimi razredi, ki v skladu s členom 17(4) splošnih pogojev zahteva predhodno odobritev.
The complainants informed the Ombudsman that by not sending any comments to the Commission regarding the se lement off er, the ICCR had de facto accepted that no interest would be paid on the suspended final payment.
Pritožnika sta Varuha obvestila, da je ICCR s tem, da Komisij i ni podal pripomb na predlagano poravnavo, de facto sprejel, da obresti za zadržano končno plačilo ne bodo izplačane.
The complainants were satisfied with the se lement.
Pritožnika sta bila s poravnavo zadovoljna.
3.5 Based on the information provided by the European Commission and the complainants, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission has se led the ma er and has thereby satisfied the complaint.
3.5 Na podlagi informacij , ki so jih posredovali Evropska komisij a in pritožnika, Varuh ugotavlja, da je Komisij a uredila zadevo in zadovoljila pritožnika.
Claim for an official Commission position on the audit and the procedures followed
Zahteva po uradnem stališču Komisij e o reviziji in postopkih, ki so ji sledili
4.1 The complainants claim that the Commission should take an official position on the audit and the procedures followed.
4.1 Pritožnika trdita, da bi Komisij a morala zavzeti uradno stališče o reviziji in postopkih, ki so ji sledili.
4.2 The European Ombudsman considers that this aspect of the case is covered by the se lement reported in part 3 of the decision.
4.2 Evropski varuh meni, da ta vidik primera pokriva poravnava, ki je opisana v 3.delu odločitve.
The allegations against the report of the Court of Auditors
Trditve zoper poročilo Računskega sodišča.
5.1 The complainants allege that the report of the Court of Auditors drew false conclusions and ignored the input provided by the ICCR.
5.1 Pritožnika trdita, da je poročilo Računskega sodišča povzelo napačne zaključke in prezrlo prispevek s strani ICCR.
5.2 The Court of Auditors argues that it took into account all information provided by the complainants to the extent considered relevant for the audit and that all findings in the sector le er are supported by sufficient and appropriate audit evidence.
5.2 Računsko sodišče trdi, da je upoštevalo vse od pritožnikov pridobljene informacij e do tiste mere, ki je bila ustrezna za revizijo in da imajo vse ugotovitve sektorskega pisma podporo v ustreznih in primernih dokazih revizije.
The Court of Auditors also argues that it did not reach false conclusions.
Računsko sodišče tudi trdi, da ni naredilo napačnih zaključkov.
5.3 The Ombudsman considers that there appears to be no evidence to suggest that the Court of Auditors ignored the input of the complainant.
5.3 Varuh meni, da ni dokazov, ki bi kazali na to, da je Računsko sodišče prezrlo prispevek pritožnika.
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that the conclusions of the Court were wrong or unreasonable.
Nadalje ni ničesar, kar bi nakazovalo, da so zaključki sodišča napačni ali nespametni.
Therefore, there appears to be no maladministration regarding these aspects of the case.
Torej ni nepravilnosti v zvezi s tem vidikom primera.
Alleged undue delay by the Court of Auditors
Domnevna neprimerna zamuda Računskega sodišča
6.1 The complainants allege undue delay in submi ing the Court of Auditors’ report to the Commission.
6.1 Pritožnika trdita, da je pri oddaji poročila Računskega sodišča Komisij i prišlo do neprimerne zamude.
According to the complainant, the audit mission was completed on 18 January 2002 and the auditor’s report was dated 15 April 2002.
Po mnenju pritožnika je bila naloga revizije zaključena 18. januarja 2002, poročilo revizije pa datirano 15. aprila 2002.
6.2 In its opinion, the Court of Auditors states that its Audit Manual provides that a sector le er should be sent within two months of the completion of the mission.
6.2 Računsko sodišče v svojem mnenju navaja, da njegov revizijski priročnik določa, da se mora sektorsko pismo poslati v roku dveh mesecev po zaključku naloge.
The Court acknowledges that the sector le er was sent in the present case with a slight delay, but that the delay could not be considered as excessive.
Sodišče potrjuje, da je sektorsko pismo v tem primeru bilo poslano z rahlo zamudo, vendar pa zamude ni mogoče imeti za pretirano.
6.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Audit Manual of the Court of Auditors is an unpublished internal guide, which is not intended to establish any entitlements for third parties.
6.3 Varuh meni, da je revizijski priročnik Računskega sodišča neobjavljen notranji vodnik, ki ni namenjen dajanju kakršnih koli pravic tretji stranki.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider the slight delay acknowledged by the Court of Auditors to constitute maladministration.
V tem primeru Varuh meni, da priznana rahla zamuda Računskega sodišča ne predstavlja nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration regarding this aspect of the case.
Varuh tako ni našel nepravilnosti v zvezi s tem vidikom pritožbe.
The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the complainants’ first allegation against the European Commission.
Varuh ni našel nepravilnosti v zvezi s pritožnikovo prvo trditvijo zoper Evropsko komisijo.
As regards the complainants’ second allegation and their claim, it appears from information provided by the European Commission and the complainants that the Commission has se led the ma er and has thereby satisfied the complaint.
Kar zadeva pritožnikovo drugo trditev in njuno zahtevo, pa na podlagi informacij Evropske komisij e in pritožnikov ugotavlja, da je Komisij a uredila zadevo in tako zadovoljila pritožnika.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Court of Auditors. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Nadalje Varuh ni našel nepravilnosti Računskega sodišča in s tem primer zaključuje.
FRIENDLYSOLUTIONS ACHIEVED BY THEOMBUDSMAN
SPORAZUMNE REŠITVE, KIJIHJE DOSEGELEVROPSKI VARUH
FAILURE TO PAY GRANT DESPITE ORAL ASSURANCES
NEPLAČILO PODPORE KLJUB USTNIM ZAGOTOVILOM
Decision on complaint 548/2002/GG against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 548/2002/GG zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complainant is the director of the “Europäisches Kultur- und Informationszentrum in Thüringen”, an association that has its seat in Germany (“the association”).
Pritožnik je direktor združenja “Europäisches Kultur- und Informationszentrum in Thüringen” (v nadaljevanju “združenje”), ki ima sedež v Nemčiji. i.
On 31 May 1998, the association submi ed an application for a grant amounting to 90 000 Ecu to the European Commission.
31. maja 1998 je združenje Evropski komisij i oddalo prijavo za podporo, ki je znašala 90.000 ekujev.
The various activities to be financed by this grant were to take place in September and October 1998.
Različne dejavnosti, ki naj bi se financirale iz te podpore, naj bi se dogajale septembra in oktobra 1998.
The person in charge of the ma er on the Commission’s side was Mr H., Adviser in Directorate-General X (now DG Education and Culture).
Za zadevo odgovorna oseba s strani Komisij e je bil g. H., svetovalec generalnega direktorata X (sedaj generalni direktorat za izobraževanje in kulturo).
According to the complainant, the association had tried to obtain, as from July 1998, clarification as to whether the Commission would accept the application, given that in the absence of other funds the proposed activities would otherwise have to be cancelled.
Po navedbah pritožnika si je združenje od julij a 1998 prizadevalo pridobiti pojasnilo, ali bi Komisij a sprejela zahtevek, saj bi sicer morale biti dejavnosti, ker ni bilo drugih sredstev, odpovedane. Pritožnik je navedel, da je g.
Still according to the complainant, Mr H. had informed the association towards the end of July 1998 (the latest date by which the activities could have been cancelled) that the application had been accepted and that the relevant document would be signed at the first meeting of the Commission a er the summer break.
H. konec julij a 1998 (zadnji rok za možnost odpovedi dejavnosti) obvestil združenje, da je bil zahtevek sprejet in da bo ustrezni dokument podpisan na prvem srečanju Komisij e po poletnem dopustu. Pritožnik trdi, da je g.
According to the complainant, it had been on the basis of these assurances that the association had begun to realise its project.
Glede na navedbe pritožnika je združenje na podlagi teh zagotovil začelo z uresničevanjem projekta.
The complainant claimed that since then there had been nearly daily contacts by telephone with Mr H. who had always confirmed that the le er granting the money was imminent.
Pritožnik trdi, da so bili odtlej v dnevnem telefonskem stiku z g. H., ki je ves čas potrjeval, da bo pismo, o dodelitvi denarja, vsak čas prispelo.
In November 1998, the association had applied to its bank for a credit.
Novembra 1998 je združenje svojo banko zaprosilo za kredit. Banka je vztrajala, da želi pisno potrdilo, da bo Komisij a dala podporo.
The complainant therefore turned to the Commission’s representation in Germany.
Pritožnik se je zato obrnil na predstavništvo Komisij e v Nemčiji. V pismu 25. novembra 1998 je dr.
This application was lodged in February 1999.
Ta zahtevek je bil vložen februarja 1999.
However, in its decision of 28 January 2000 the Commission rejected the application.
Vendar pa je 28. januarja 2000 Komisij a zahtevek zavrnila.
It appears that this decision was based on the consideration that funds provided in 1999 could not be used to finance activities carried out in 1998.
Ta odločitev je temeljila na razmisleku, da se zagotovljena sredstva za leto 1999 ne morejo koristiti za dejavnosti iz leta 1998.
Several contacts took place subsequently between the complainant, his local MEP, the member of the Commission in charge and the Commission’s services.
Pozneje je bil pritožnik v stikih z lokalnim poslancem EP, z odgovornim komisarjem in s službami Komisije. 30. junij a 2000 je generalni direktor GD X pritožnika obvestil, da je na podlagi domneve, da je dr.
The Commission argued, however, that this should only cover expenditure in relation to contracts that contained a ‘risk clause’, i.e. a clause to the effect that payment should only
Komisij a pa je trdila, da to lahko krije le stroške v zvezi s pogodbami, ki so vsebovale ‘klavzulo tveganja’, t.j. klavzula s posledico, da plačilo postane dolg samo, ko se Komisij a odloči, da bo podelila podporo.
The complainant objected to this proposal and insisted that the full balance of € 70.000 should be paid out.
Pritožnik se ni strinjal s tem predlogom in je vztrajal, da se mu izplača celotni znesek v višini 70.000 €.
Several further efforts to make the Commission change its mind were unsuccessful, however.
Vendar pa so bila vsa nadaljnja prizadevanja za to, da bi Komisij a spremenila svojo odločitev, neuspešna.
The complainant then turned to another MEP who forwarded the complaint to the Ombudsman.
Pritožnik se je nato obrnil na drugega poslanca EP, ki je pritožbo posredoval Evropskemu varuhu.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in March 2002, the complainant pointed out that all the grants it had received from the EU so far had been based on good faith.
V svoji pritožbi, ki jo je pri varuhu vložil marca 2002, je pritožnik opozoril, da je vsa podpora, ki jo je dotlej prejel s strani EU, temeljila na dobri veri.
The complainant alleged that when the association had applied for a grant for a project in 1995, it had been informed orally that the money had been granted and that the association had begun to carry out its concomitant obligations whilst the wri en confirmation was received months later when the project was long terminated.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je bilo združenje, ko je zaprosilo za podporo projektu leta 1995, ustno obveščeno, da je bil denar odobren in da je združenje začelo z uresničevanjem sočasnih obveznosti, medtem ko so pisno potrdilo prejeli šele mesece kasneje, ko se je projekt zaključil.
According to the complainant, the same past ern had prevailed with regard to later applications for grants.
Po navedbah pritožnika je veljal isti vzorec za kasnejše zahtevke za podporo.
The complainant thus claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the balance of a grant that in his view the Commission had accepted to provide to the association.
Pritožnik je zato trdil, da Komisij a ni izplačala vsote podpore, ki jo je po njegovem mnenju nameravala dati združenju.
He basically alleged that the association had been entitled to rely on the assurances that he claimed had been made by Mr H. of the Commission’s services.
V osnovi je navajal, da se je združenje upravičeno zanašalo na zagotovila, ki jih je po njegovem mnenju dal g. H iz služb Komisije. e.
The complainant added that the association had no other funds and that if no solution could be found, it would have to cease its activities.
Pritožnik je dodal, da združenje nima drugih sredstev in da bo moralo, če se ne najde rešitev, končati svojo dejavnost.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Mnenje Komisij e
In its opinion, the Commission gave a detailed description of the sequence of events and actions, in particular in so far as the period a er the dispatch of the le er of 23 December 1998 was concerned.
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju predstavila podroben opis zaporedja dogodkov in dejanj, še posebej za obdobje po poslanem pismu 23. decembra 1998.
With specific regard to the allegation made by the complainant, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je podala naslednje pripombe zlasti glede pritožnikovih trditev:
Given that Mr H. had died in November 1999, it was no longer possible to verify what had in fact been said.
H. novembra 1999 umrl, ni bilo več možno preveriti, kaj je bilo dogovorjeno.
The fi le of DG X did however not contain any trace of these promises.
Spis generalnega direktorata X pa ni vseboval nobenih sledi o teh obljubah.
A er having consulted the Commission’s Legal Service, DG Education and Culture had taken the position that over and above the amount of € 20.000 already paid, the Commission was legally obliged to cover only those financial commitments that had been entered into by the association between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
Po posvetovanju s pravno službo Komisije, je generalni direktorat za izobraževanje in kulturo zavzel stališče, da mora Komisij a zakonito poleg že plačanega zneska v višini 20.000 € kriti samo f i finančne obveznosti, ki so v združenju nastopile med 25. novembrom 1998 in 5. januarjem 1999. 22.