natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A foreign national who lived and worked in Sweden possessed a “personnummer”.
Tuj državljan, ki živi in dela na Švedskem, ima številko švedskega socialnega zavarovanja.
Besides, a non-resident Swedish national could also be required to provide a deposit if he came to Sweden for a short time as a student.
Poleg tega bi depozit lahko zahtevali tudi od švedskega državljana, ki ne živi na Švedskem in je prišel v domovino za kratek čas kot študent.
Although this person had a “personnummer”, no financial information was available on the database regarding this person since he did not reside in Sweden.
Čeprav ta oseba ima “personnummer”, v zbirki podatkov ni informacij o njenem finančnem stanju, ker ne prebiva na Švedskem.
As every telecommunications operator, Telia needed, when accepting a new subscriber, to have the relevant data of the person and a means to trace him in case he did not pay his bills.
Kot vsak telekomunikacijski operater Telia pri vpisu novega naročnika potrebuje ustrezne osebne podatke in sredstvo, s katerim osebo lahko izsledi, če ta ne plača računov.
Many telecommunications operators within the EU covered this risk by asking for a copy of the subscriber’s identity card.
Veliko telekomunikacijskih operaterjev v EU se pred tem tveganjem zaščiti z zahtevo po kopij i naročnikove osebne izkaznice.
This was practised notably by agencies of operators that favoured the sale of subscriptions in the physical presence of the subscriber.
Ta praksa je v navadi zlasti v agencijah operaterjev, ki želijo naročniško razmerje skleniti v fizični prisotnosti naročnika.
However, Telia’s situation was different.
Toda primer Telie je drugačen.
On the other hand, it legitimately wished to assure itself as to the solvency of the client at the time when it concluded the contract. Telia therefore did not ask for a copy of the identity card.
Po eni strani podjetje pogosto sklepa naročniška razmerja po telefonu, po drugi strani pa se upravičeno želi prepričati o plačilni sposobnosti stranke ob sklenitvi pogodbe.
In order to assure itself as to the solvency of the client, the company asked those clients who had one for their “personnummer”.
Ker zaradi tega ne zahteva kopij e osebne izkaznice, se o plačilni sposobnosti strank prepriča tako, da jih prosi za “personnummer”.
Where no access to financial data on the customer that had been validated by a third party or no evidence of property was available, a deposit was requested.
Če ni dostopa do informacij o finančnem stanju stranke, ki ga je potrdila tretja oseba, ali dokaza o lastnini, podjetje zahteva depozit.
In fact, Telia granted unlimited usage of the telephone line to its customers between two bills, that is to say during a period of three months.
Pravzaprav je Telia svojim strankam omogočila neomejeno uporabo telefonske linije med dvema računoma, tj. za obdobje treh mesecev.
The relevant options furthermore covered the risk that a bill should remain unpaid.
Ustrezne možnosti so torej zavarovale tveganje, da bi račun ostal neplačan.
The practice of telecommunications operators in Europe as to the conditions for the grant of a line, the conditions of invoicing and the period during which the line was maintained and allowed to be used where the customer failed to pay the bills were very varied.
Praksa telekomunikacijskih operaterjev v Evropi glede pogojev za dodelitev linije, pogojev obračunavanja in obdobja, v katerem je linija vzpostavljena in dana na razpolago stranki, ki ni plačala računov, je različna. Nekateri operaterji, npr.
Other operators such as British Telecom or France Telecom also foresaw that deposits like the one asked for by Telia were necessary in certain cases.
British Telecom ali France Telecom, menijo, da je depozit, kakršnega zahteva Telia, v določenih primerih potreben.
According to Telia’s system, total and unlimited usage of a telephone line was possible for a period of fi ve months between the date when the last invoice was paid and the date when the line was effectively blocked in the absence of payment.
Sistem Telie omogoča polno in neomejeno uporabo telefonske linije v obdobju petih mesecev od datuma zadnjega plačanega računa do datuma, ko je telefonska linija zaradi neplačevanja blokirana.
Other operators limited this period to three months and certain of them blocked usage of the line for external calls shortly a er the failure to pay a bill was detected.
Drugi operaterji so to obdobje omejili na tri mesece, nekateri pa linijo za zunanje klice blokirajo že kmalu po odkritju neplačanega računa.
Telia had reduced its system of deposits that now amounted to 3000 SEK or 333 € instead of 5000 SEK at the time when the complainant had turned to the Commission.
Telia je od časa, ko se je pritožnik obrnil na Komisijo, višino depozita znižala s 5000 SEK na 3000 SEK ali 333 €.
This amount appeared to be appropriate to the aim pursued (333 € as a deposit for fi ve months’ free usage of the line).
Ta znesek ustreza zastavljenemu cilju (333 € kot depozit za petmesečno prosto uporabo linije). e).
The principal reason of the obligation to provide the “personnummer” (or a deposit or evidence proving ownership of accommodation) was not to avoid the risk that the company might have to pursue its claims in other member states.
Glavni razlog za obvezno zahtevo številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja (ali depozita ali dokaza o lastništvu nepremičnine) ni izogniti se tveganju, da bi moralo podjetje izterjati dolg v drugih državah članicah.
In the absence of a discrimination or of an unjustified practice, the Commission considered that there were not enough grounds to justify opening a procedure for an infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.
Ker v zadevnem primeru ni bilo diskriminacij e ali neupravičenega ravnanja, je Komisij a menila, da ni dovolj razlogov za sprožitev postopka zaradi kršitve člena 82 Pogodbe o ES.
He alleged that Telia’s approach resulted in an indirect discrimination of non-Swedish nationals since in reality, the la er could only obtain a “personnummer” a er one year.
Navedel je, da je posledica pristopa Telie posredna diskriminacij a nešvedskih državljanov, saj ti v resnici lahko prejmejo številko švedskega socialnega zavarovanja šele po enem letu.
According to the complainant, Telia’s general terms of business provided that a deposit was required where there was reason to assume that the customer would not pay his invoices.
Z njegovega stališča splošni pogoji poslovanja Telie omogočajo zahtevo za depozit, če obstaja možnost, da stranka ne bo plačala računov.
The complainant argued that by assuming that this was the case where no “personnummer” was available, Telia in fact disadvantaged nationals of other member states.
Ker se to zgodi v primeru, ko stranka nima številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja, Telia dejansko neugodno obravnava državljane drugih držav članic.
In the complainant’s view, there was a substantial difference between asking for a “personnummer” and asking for a deposit.
Po mnenju pritožnika je med zahtevo po številki švedskega socialnega zavarovanja in depozitu bistvena razlika.
In the former case, proof of solvency was sufficient whereas in the second case the customer had to provide financial resources to Telia, and that without receiving interest.
Prva zadostuje kot dokaz plačilne sposobnosti, medtem ko mora v drugem primeru stranka Telii zagotoviti finančni vir, in sicer brez obresti.
The complainant added that the comparison with British Telecom and France Telecom was not convincing, given that the conditions of these companies indiscriminately dealt with the cases where a deposit was required.
Pritožnik je dodal, da primerjava z družbama British Telecom in France Telecom ni prepričljiva, saj v pogojih obeh ni diskriminacij e pri obravnavi primerov, kjer je potreben depozit.
The Ombudsman therefore made the following dra recommendation to the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Zato je pripravil naslednji osnutek priporočila Komisij i v skladu s členom 3 (6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic:
The European Commission should reconsider the complaint submi ed to it by the complainant.
Evropska komisij a naj ponovno preuči pritožbo, ki jo je vložil pritožnik.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission made the following comments:
Komisij a je v podrobnem mnenju navedla naslednje pripombe:
As to the substance of the complaint that the complainant had submi ed to the Commission, there remained a difference of opinion between the complainant, the Ombudsman and the Commission.
Pritožnik, Varuh in Komisij a se ne strinjajo glede vsebine pritožbe, ki jo je pritožnik vložil pri Komisij i.
The person that was principally concerned, that is to say Telia, had not been involved in the exchange of correspondence.
Ob tem podjetje Telia, ki ga primer v prvi vrsti zadeva, ni sodelovalo pri dopisovanju.
It remained to be clarified whether Telia’s practice constituted an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.
Še vedno ni jasno, ali ravnanje Telie predstavlja zlorabo prevladujočega položaja v smislu člena 86 Pogodbe o ES.
The Commission had therefore decided formally to examine this question under Article 82 of the EC Treaty. This would allow the parties concerned (the complainant and Telia) to provide their views on all elements of the present case.
Komisij a je zato uradno sklenila preučiti to vprašanje v okviru člena 82 Pogodbe o ES, kar bi vpletenima strankama (pritožniku in Telii) omogočilo izraziti mnenje o vseh vidikih primera.
At the end of this examination, the Commission would be in a position to reconsider all the elements of the present case before taking a definitive decision on the substance.
Ob zaključku preučitve bi Komisij a lahko ponovno preverila vse elemente omenjenega primera, preden sprejme končni sklep o njegovi vsebini.
This new approach should not be understood as an acceptance by the Commission of the Ombudsman’s comments regarding the substance of the ma er.
Novi pristop pa ne pomeni, da je Komisij a sprejela pripombe Varuha v zvezi z vsebino zadeve.
In order to proceed rapidly, the complainant’s complaint under Article 82 of the Treaty would be forwarded to Telia within the next few days.
Z namenom pospešitve postopka bi pritožnikovo pritožbo v skladu s členom 82 Pogodbe v naslednjih nekaj dneh posredovali Telii.
On 1 July 2003, the complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that he was satisfied with the outcome of this case.
Pritožnik je 1. julij a 2003 službe Varuha po telefonu obvestil, da je z izidom preiskave primera zadovoljen.
Lack of information concerning complaint lodged with the Commission
Pomanjkanje informacij glede pritožbe, vložene pri Komisij i
1.1 The complainant, a German national, studied in Sweden.
1.1 Pritožnik, ki je nemški državljan, je študiral na Švedskem.
In order to obtain a telephone subscription from Telia, a Swedish telecommunications company, he had to provide a deposit of 5000 SEK.
Da bi postal telefonski naročnik Telie, švedskega telekomunikacijskega podjetja, je moral položiti depozit 5000 SEK.
It appears that such a deposit was requested of all foreigners who did not possess a Swedish social security number.
Ta depozit podjetje očitno zahteva od vseh tujcev, ki nimajo številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja.
The complainant considered that this was an instance of discrimination contrary to Article 12 of the EC Treaty, given that Swedish nationals did not have to provide such a deposit.
Po mnenju pritožnika gre pri tem za diskriminacij o v nasprotju s členom 12 Pogodbe o ES, saj švedskim državljanom depozita ni treba plačati.
On 25 November 1998, the complainant therefore submi ed a formal complaint to the Commission.
Pritožnik je 25. novembra 1998 zato vložil uradno pritožbo pri Komisij i.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in June 2002, the complainant alleged that despite several reminders the Commission had neither informed him about the state of the procedure nor about whether it intended to commence infringement proceedings against Sweden.
V pritožbi Varuhu, vloženi junij a 2002, je nato izjavil, da ga Komisij a kljub več opominom ni obvestila niti o stanju postopka niti o tem, ali namerava sprožiti postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Švedski.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission explained how the complaint had been dealt with by it and regre ed that there had been a certain delay in so far as informing the complainant was concerned.
1.2 Komisij a je podala mnenje, v katerem je pojasnila, kako je bila zadeva obravnavana, in izrazila obžalovanje zaradi nekaj zamude pri obveščanju pritožnika.
According to the Commission, the complainant was finally informed by a le er sent on 8 August 2002.
Pritožnika je o zadevi končno obvestila v pismu z dne 8. avgusta 2002.
1.3 It is good administrative practice that complainants should be kept informed about the state and the outcome of complaints that they lodge with the Commission.
1.3 Dobro upravljanje pomeni, da so pritožniki obveščeni o stanju in izidu pritožb, ki jih vložijo pri Komisij i.
In the present case, it took the Commission nine months and a reminder from the complainant before it informed the la er in September 1999 that his complaint had been formally registered.
V tem primeru je Komisij a potrebovala devet mesecev in opomin pritožnika, preden ga je septembra 1999 obvestila, da je bila njegova pritožba uradno registrirana.
None of the three reminders that were subsequently sent by the complainant appear to have been answered.
Odgovorila ni na nobenega od treh naknadnih opominov, ki jih ji je poslal pritožnik.
It was only in August 2002, and a er having been informed that the complainant had turned to the Ombudsman, that the Commission finally informed the complainant about the outcome of his complaint.
Šele avgusta 2002 in po obvestilu, da se je pritožnik obrnil na Varuha, je Komisij a pritožniku končno sporočila izid pritožbe.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that the approach of the Commission in the present case constitutes a clear case of maladministration.
V teh okoliščinah Varuh človekovih pravic ugotavlja očiten primer nepravilnosti pri ravnanju Komisije.
However, in view of the fact that the complainant has informed the Ombudsman that he accepted the Commission’s apologies the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue his inquiries into this aspect of the complaint.
Toda ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je pritožnik obvestil Varuha, da sprejema opravičilo Komisije, Varuh meni, da ni razloga za nadaljevanje preiskave v tem pogledu.
Failure to pursue the complaint to the Commission
Neuspešno posredovanje pritožbe Komisij i
2.1 In its le er to the complainant and in the opinion submi ed to the Ombudsman, the Commission pointed out that in the course of its inquiry into a possible infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, it had asked Telia to comment on the issue.
2.1 V pismu pritožniku in mnenju, poslanem Varuhu človekovih pravic, je Komisij a poudarila, da je med preiskavo o morebitni kršitvi člena 82 Pogodbe o ES Telio prosila za pojasnilo.
Telia had explained that the deposit it demanded served the purpose of securing debts of subscribers of whom Telia, in the absence of a Swedish social security number, might lose track in the case of a move.
Ta je pojasnila, da zahtevani depozit služi kot zagotovilo za povrnitev dolga naročnikov, katerih podatke bi v primeru selitve brez številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja podjetje lahko izgubilo.
The Commission noted that it had considered that this explanation justified the difference in treatment between holders of a Swedish social security number and persons who did not have such a number.
Po mnenju Komisij e je ta razlaga utemeljila različno obravnavanje oseb z in oseb brez številke švedskega socialnega zavarovanja.
It had thus decided not to make any further inquiries.
Odločila se je, da nadaljnja preiskava ni potrebna.
2.2 In his observations, the complainant criticised this decision.
2.2 Pritožnik je v pripombah kritično odgovoril na to odločitev.
The complainant considered that there was an infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, given that Telia discriminated between Swedish nationals and other EU nationals.
Z njegovega vidika je bil kršen člen 82 Pogodbe o ES, saj je Telia razlikovala med švedskimi državljani in drugimi državljani EU.
He further submi ed that the purpose followed by Telia of securing itself against the risk of losing track of its debtors could not justify this discrimination.
Dodal je tudi, da namen Telie zavarovati se pred izgubo sledi za dolžniki ne more opravičiti te diskriminacije. e.
2.3 The Ombudsman considered that the complainant had thus submi ed a further allegation.
2.3 Varuh je menil, da je pritožnik s tem vložil novo pritožbo.
Given the close link between the original complaint and the further allegation, he took the view
2.4 Varuh ugotavlja, da ima Komisij a neomejena pooblastila v zvezi s pritožbami o kršenju konkurenčnega prava EU.
2.5 When dealing with prospective subscribers, Telia distinguishes between those persons who have a Swedish social security number (“personnummer”) and those who do not have such a number and who do not possess a house or an apartment in Sweden either.
2.5 Pri sprejemanju novih naročnikov Telia razlikuje med tistimi, ki imajo številko švedskega socialnega zavarovanja, in tistimi, ki je nimajo in ki tudi nimajo hiše ali stanovanja na Švedskem.
As the complainant correctly points out, this distinction has important repercussions: whereas the mere indication of the “personnummer” is sufficient in the first case, the customer has to provide financial resources to Telia in the second case.
Kot je pritožnik pravilno poudaril, ima to razlikovanje pomembne posledice: medtem ko v prvem primeru zadostuje le številka švedskega socialnega zavarovanja, mora v drugem primeru stranka Telii zagotoviti finančni vir.
Contrary to what the Commission alleges, this distinction results in an indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
V nasprotju s trditvami Komisij e to razlikovanje vodi k posredni diskriminacij i na podlagi državljanstva.
The Commission itself points out that a “personnummer” is given to every Swedish citizen and to every foreigner residing for more than one year in Sweden.
Komisij a sama je zapisala, da se številka švedskega socialnega zavarovanja dodeli vsakemu švedskemu državljanu in vsakemu tujcu, ki na Švedskem živi dlje kot eno leto.
This means that nationals of other EU member states who do not stay in Sweden for more than one year (such as students) do not obtain a “personnummer”.
To pomeni, da državljani drugih držav članic EU, ki na Švedskem živijo manj kot eno leto (npr. študenti), te številke ne dobijo.
By limiting the advantage of not having to provide a deposit to those persons who have a “personnummer”, Telia thus necessarily disadvantages all nationals of other member states who do not have such a number.
Ker Telia pologa depozita ne zahteva le od oseb s številko švedskega socialnega zavarovanja, za to ugodnost posledično prikrajša vse državljane drugih držav članic, ki te številke nimajo.
The fact that non-resident Swedish nationals could also be required to provide a deposit when they come to Sweden for a short time as a student would (if established) not affect this conclusion.
Dejstvo, da depozit morajo položiti tudi švedski državljani, ki na Švedskem ne živijo in pridejo na Švedsko za krajši čas kot študenti (če bi se to izvajalo), ne vpliva na ta zaključek.
In order to constitute discrimination on the grounds of nationality, the relevant measure does not have to benefit all nationals of the member state concerned.108
Za ugotavljanje diskriminacij e na podlagi državljanstva ni treba, da ustrezno merilo pomeni prednost za vse državljane zadevne države članice.108
2.6 The Ombudsman considers that none of the arguments that have been put forward by the Commission can be regarded as constituting a sufficient justification for this difference in treatment.
2.6 Varuh meni, da v tem primeru noben argument Komisij e ne zadošča za utemeljitev različnega pristopa do strank.
First, the Commission’s explanation as to why Telia does not simply ask prospective customers for a copy of their identity card is unconvincing.
Prvič, obrazložitev Komisij e o tem, zakaj Telia bodočih naročnikov enostavno ne prosi za kopij o njihove osebne izkaznice, ni prepričljiva.
If Telia’s supposed preference to sell subscriptions over the telephone should make it impractical for such a paper copy to be provided, it is difficult to understand why evidence as to the purchase of a house or apartment in Sweden is nevertheless accepted.
Če Telia naročniška razmerja raje sklepa po telefonu in bi bilo zato pridobivanje kopij e nepraktično, je težko razumeti, da kljub temu sprejema dokazila o nakupu hiše oz. stanovanja na Švedskem.
Second, the individual commercial approach of Telia (with longer periods between invoices than practised by other companies) can obviously not justify disadvantaging nationals of other member states.
Drugič, individualni komercialni pristop Telie (z daljšimi obdobji med obračuni kot v drugih podjetjih) ne more upravičiti neugodnega položaja državljanov drugih držav članic.
Third, the reduction of the deposit from 5000 SEK to 3000 SEK reduces the disadvantage suffered by nationals of other member states but does not eliminate it.
Tretjič, znižanje depozita s 5000 SEK na 3000 SEK sicer izboljšuje slabši položaj državljanov drugih držav članic, vendar ga ne odpravi.
Fourth, and most important, Telia is of course entitled to protect itself against the risk that customers might not pay their invoices.
Četrtič in najpomembneje, Telia ima pravico do zavarovanja pred neplačevanjem računov s strani strank, vendar to ne upraviči sistema, ki državljane drugih držav članic postavlja v slabši položaj.
However, this does not justify a system that results in disadvantaging nationals of other member states.
Varuh meni, da obstajajo načini za doseganje legitimnega cilja brez poseganja po diskriminacij i.
The Ombudsman considers that there are possibilities to ensure the legitimate aim without resorting to discriminating measures.
S tem v zvezi je treba opozoriti, da Komisij a v EU ni našla telekomunikacijskega operaterja s podobnim sistemom poslovanja kot Telia.
In this context, it is not without interest to note that the Commission has been unable to identify any other comparable telecommunications operator in the EU that would practice a system similar to Telia’s.
Pritožnik je pravilno ugotovil, da v pogojih podjetij British Telecom in France Telecom, ki ju je za primerjavo navedla Komisij a, zahteva po depozitu ni niti posredno niti neposredno povezana z državljanstvom stranke.
As the complainant correctly observes, the conditions of neither British Telecom nor France Telecom that have been submi ed by the Commission would appear to link the obligation to provide a deposit, directly or indirectly, to the nationality of the customer.
3.1 Na podlagi preiskave je Varuh sestavil osnutek priporočila, v katerem predlaga Komisij i, naj ponovno preuči pritožbo, ki jo je vložil pritožnik. Komisij a je v podrobnem mnenju Varuha obvestila, da bo sprožila uradno preiskavo v skladu s členom 82 Pogodbe o ES.
CASES CLOSED AFTER ASPECIAL REPORT
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUČENIPOPOSEBNEMPOROČILU
3.6.1 The European Parliament
3.6.1 Evropski parlament
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ACCEPTS TO PUBLISH NAMES OF SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES IN RECRUITMENT COMPETITIONS
EVROPSKI PARLAMENT SPREJME ODLOČITEV O OBJAVI IMEN USPEŠNIH KANDIDATOV NA IZBIRNIH POSTOPKIH ZA ZAPOSLITEV
Decision on complaint 341/2001/(BB)IJH against the European Parliament
Sklep o pritožbi 341/2001/(BB)IJH zoper Evropski parlament
The complaint concerned the European Parliament’s refusal to inform the complainant, who took part in an open competition, of the names and marks of the successful candidates in the competition.
Pritožba zadeva zavrnitev Evropskega parlamenta, da pritožnika, ki se je udeležil javnega izbirnega postopka, obvesti o imenih in rezultatih uspešnih kandidatov v tem postopku.