natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.4 In the light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there is no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
3.4 Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega tako Varuh ne najde nepravilnosti glede tega vidika pritožbe.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Po preiskavi te pritožbe je treba podati naslednjo kritično pripombo:
The Ombudsman inspected the documents to which the Council had given the complainant only partial access.
Varuh je pregledal dokumente, do katerih je Svet pritožnici odobril le delni pristop.
The Ombudsman considers that the Council’s reasoning that release of the deleted material could enable someone to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council fails to justify many of the deletions that were made.
Varuh meni, da pojasnilo Sveta, da bi dostopnost izbrisanega gradiva lahko komu omogočila identifi kacij o stališč delegacijali predstavnika Komisij e glede zadev, o katerih Svet še razpravlja, ne opravičuje številnih izvedenih izbrisov.
This was an instance of maladministration.
To je bil primer nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman considers it unnecessary for him to take any further action, since the Council has now given the complainant access to the documents concerned in their entirety, following its agreement on the dra Regulation concerned at its meeting on 26 November 2002.
Varuh meni, da ukrepanje ni potrebno, ker je Svet pritožnici odobril dostop do vseh dokumentov v njihovi celoti, potem ko je na srečanju 26. novembra 2002 dosegel soglasje glede osnutka zadevne uredbe.
Decision on complaint 1200/2003/OV (confidential) against the Council of the European Union
Sklep o pritožbi 1200/2003/OV (zaupno) zoper Svet Evropske unij e
The administration of the Planning Team of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Sarajevo terminated the complainant’s employment contract, without providing any reasons, and on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
Uprava skupine za načrtovanje pri Evropski policijski misiji (EUPM) v Sarajevu je odpovedala pritožnikovo pogodbo o zaposlitvi, ne da bi navedla kakršnekoli razloge in na podlagi neutemeljenih trditev. Obenem je bila kršena pritožnikova pravica do obrambe.
The complainant objected to the procedure followed by le er to the Planning Team dated 19 November 2002.
Pritožnik je ugovarjal postopku, kateremu je sledilo pismo skupini za načrtovanje z dne 19. novembra 2002.
In his reply of 26 November 2002, the Head of the EUPM Planning Team indicated that the complainant’s contract of employment had been terminated because of his inappropriate behaviour and because he had contravened the ethos of the EUPM Planning Team and his responsibilities as a professional member of the mission.
V svojem odgovoru z dne 26. novembra 2002 je vodja skupine za načrtovanje EUPM nakazal, da je bila pritožnikova pogodba o zaposlitvi odpovedana zaradi neprimernega obnašanja in zato, ker je kršil običaje skupine za načrtovanje EUPM ter svoje dolžnosti profesionalnega člana misije. e.
On 17 December 2002, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman (ref. 2188/2002/OV).
Pritožnik je 17. decembra 2002 vložil pritožbo pri Varuhu (štev.
The Ombudsman advised the complainant to write to the Council.
Varuh je pritožniku svetoval, naj piše Svetu.
According to the complainant, he then sent two registered le ers to the Council, but received no reply.
Pritožnik navaja, da je Svetu poslal dve priporočeni pismi, vendar odgovora ni dobil.
On 26 June 2003, the complainant lodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman.
Pritožnik je pri Varuhu dne 26. junij a 2003 vložil sedanjo pritožbo.
The complainant alleged that his contract with the EUPM was terminated without any reasons and on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, and that the Council has not replied to his two registered le ers about the ma er.
Navedel je, da je bila njegova pogodba o zaposlitvi pri EUPM prekinjena brez razloga in na podlagi neutemeljenih trditev in da Svet ni odgovoril na njegovi dve priporočeni pismi o zadevi.
He claimed that the Council should clear him of the allegations against him and that he should receive his salary for the whole month of December 2002.
Zahteval je, da ga Svet razbremeni obtožb, prav tako pa je zahteval plačilo za celoten december 2002.
In a short opinion, the Council argued that its General Secretariat did not intervene either in the complainant’s appointment or in his dismissal.
V svojem kratkem mnenju je Svet navedel, da njegov generalni sekretariat ni posredoval ne pri imenovanju pritožnika ne pri njegovem odpustu.
It is, however, the task of the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner to exercise operational command over the EUPM, to assume the day-to-day management of
Pritožnika je neposredno zaposlila skupina za načrtovanje EUPM na podlagi pristojnosti, ki so bile Evropski policijski misiji62 i62 poverjene s Skupnim
Decisions following an inquiry
Sklepi preiskav ukrepom Sveta z dne 11. marca 2002.
From the above it appears that it is not for the General Secretariat of the Council to recruit (and eventually dismiss) contractual staff for the EUPM.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da generalni sekretariat Sveta ni pristojen za zaposlovanje (in morebitno odpuščanje) pogodbenega osebja EUPM.
The complainant maintained his complaint.
Pritožnik je vztrajal pri svoji pritožbi. Navedel je, da je že začel pisati pisma odvetnikom v Bruslju.
1.1 In dealing with complaints concerning a contractual relationship with a Community institution or body, the Ombudsman limits his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified.
1.1 Ko obravnava pritožbe glede pogodbenega razmerja z institucij o ali organom Skupnosti, Varuh omeji preiskavo na ugotavljanje, ali so mu institucij e oziroma organi Skupnosti podali dovolj jasnih in razumnih pravnih argumentov za svoje ravnanje in zakaj menijo, da je njihovo stališče glede pogodbenega razmerja upravičeno.
If that is the case, the Ombudsman concludes that his inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration.
V tem primeru Varuh zaključi, da njegova preiskava ni razkrila nepravilnosti.
1.2 The Ombudsman’s decision on a contractual case does not affect the right of the parties to have the dispute subsequently examined and authoritatively se led by a court of competent jurisdiction.
1.2 Odločitev Varuha glede tega pogodbenega primera ne vpliva na pravico strank, da se njun spor naknadno razišče in da o njem odloči pristojno sodišče.
The termination of the contract without reasons and on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations
Prekinitev pogodbe brez razloga in na podlagi neutemeljenih trditev
2.1 The complainant alleged that his contract with the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Sarajevo was terminated without any reasons and on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations.
2.1 Pritožnik je navedel, da je bila njegova pogodba z Evropsko policijsko misijo (EUPM) v Sarajevu odpovedana brez razloga in na podlagi neutemeljenih trditev. Pritožnik meni, da je bila kršena njegova pravica do obrambe.
2.2 The Council argued that its General Secretariat did not intervene either in the complainant’s appointment, or in his dismissal.
2.2 Svet je trdil, da njegov generalni sekretariat ni sodeloval ne pri imenovanju pritožnika ne pri njegovem odpustu.
The complainant was directly employed by the EUPM Planning Team, pursuant to the powers awarded to the mission by Council Joint Action of 11 March 2002 on the European Police Mission.
Pritožnika je neposredno zaposlila skupina za načrtovanje EUPM na podlagi pristojnosti, ki so bile 11. marca 2002 Evropski policijski misiji poverjene s Skupnim ukrepom Sveta.
He was dismissed for reasons of which the General Secretariat of the Council was unaware.
Odpuščen je bil zaradi razlogov, ki so bili generalnemu sekretariatu Sveta nepoznani.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the European Union Police Mission was established by Council Joint Action of 11 March 200265.
2.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da je bila Evropska policijska misija ustanovljena 11. marca 200265s Skupnim ukrepom Sveta.
Police Commissioner, appointed by the Council, shall exercise operational command over the EUPM and assume the day-to-day management of the EUPM operations.
Člen 4.1 Skupnega ukrepa določa, da vodja misij e/policij ski načelnik, ki ga je imenoval Svet, izvaja operativno poveljevanje v EUPM in prevzema dnevno vodenje operacij EUPM.
Article 4.4 further provides that the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall be responsible for disciplinary control over the personnel.
Člen 4.4 nadalje določa, da je vodja misij e/policij ski načelnik odgovoren za disciplinski nadzor nad osebjem.
Article 3.2 of the Agreement between the EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) on the activities of the EUPM in BiH66 provides that the Head of Mission/Police Commissioner shall report to the Secretary-General/High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy through the European Union Special Representative in BiH.
Člen 3.2 Sporazuma med EU in Bosno in Hercegovino glede dejavnosti EUPM v BiH66 določa, da vodja misij e/policij ski poverjenik poroča generalnemu sekretarju/visokemu predstavniku za skupno zunanjo in varnostno politiko preko posebnega predstavnika Evropske unij e v BiH.
On the basis of this evidence, the facts of the case appear to be as follows:
Skupni ukrep Sveta z dne 11. marca 2002 glede Evropske policijske misije, člen 5 (3).
The contract of employment of the complainant was signed on 26 June 2002 with the EUPM Planning Team, in accordance with Article 5.3 of the Council Joint Action of 11 March 2002
Skupni ukrep Sveta z dne 11. marca 2002 glede Evropske policijske misije, člena 4 (1) in 7, tretja alinea.
Decisions following an inquiry on the EUPM, which provides that “international civilian staff and local staff shall be recruited on a contractual basis by the EUPM as required”.
Pogodba o zaposlitvi pritožnika je bila s strani skupine za načrtovanje EUPM podpisana 26. junij a 2002 v skladu z členom 5.3 Skupnega ukrepa Sveta glede EUPM z dne 11. marca 2002, ki določa, da “EUPM za svoje potrebe pogodbeno zaposli mednarodno civilno osebje in lokalno osebje”.
The duration of the contract was from 1 July to 31 December 2002.
Pogodbeno razmerje je trajalo od 1. julij a do 31. decembra 2002.
(ii) The termination of the complainant’s contract was decided as a disciplinary measure.
(ii) Odpoved pritožnikove pogodbe je bila določena kot disciplinski ukrep.
The documentation sent by the complainant contains a note of 12 November 2002 from the Legal Adviser of the EUPM Planning Team entitled “Recommendation on a disciplinary case”.
Dokumentacija, ki jo je pritožnik poslal, vsebuje sporočilo pravnega svetovalca skupine za načrtovanje EUPM z naslovom “Priporočilo glede disciplinskega primera” z dne 12. novembra 2002.
This note mentions that an internal investigation report was compiled by the Deputy Police Commissioner into alleged misconduct by the complainant.
To sporočilo omenja, da je interno preiskovalno poročilo o domnevnem slabem vedenju pritožnika sestavil namestnik načelnika policijskega poverjenika.
The alleged misconduct concerned the supposed relationship of the complainant with a Moldavian woman who was staying illegally in Bosnia-Herzegovina working as a dancer in two local bars and whom the complainant was supposed to have paid for “services”.
Zatrjevano slabo vedenje je zadevalo domnevno razmerje pritožnika z moldavsko žensko, ki je nezakonito prebivala v Bosni in Hercegovini in delala kot plesalka v dveh lokalnih barih in kateri je pritožnik domnevno plačal za “storitve”.
The note, which also refers to “commercial sexual purchasing”, concluded that “(..) because of being a member of the EUPM Planning Team and thus being under an obligation not to foster any illegal activities, [the complainant] should have been more reserved to establish any kind of emotional/romantic relationship with Ms X. As having ignored a decent and reserved behaviour in this regard, [the complainant] has endangered the impeccable reputation of the EUPM Planning Team”.
Sporočilo, ki omenja tudi “prodajanje spolnih storitev”, je zaključilo, da “(...) ker je član skupine za načrtovanje EUPM in ker je zato obvezan, da ne opravlja nobenih nezakonitih dejavnosti, bi [pritožnik] pri vzpostavljanju kakršnegakoli čustvenega/romantičnega odnosa z gospo X moral biti bolj zadržan. Ker v tem pogledu ni upošteval dostojnega in zadržanega obnašanja, je [pritožnik] ogrozil brezhibni ugled skupine za načrtovanje EUPM”.
(iii) The Legal Adviser’s conclusion and recommendation was that “the behaviour of [the complainant] has been seriously inconsistent with his obligations emanating from his contract of employment.
(iii) Pravni svetovalec je zaključil in priporočil, da je bilo “obnašanje [pritožnika] resno v neskladju z njegovimi obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
[The complainant] has severely jeopardised the reputation of the EUPM Planning Team.
[Pritožnik] je resno ogrozil ugled skupine za načrtovanje EUPM.
His actions in this regard have constituted a serious misconduct.
Njegova dejanja predstavljajo zelo slabo vedenje.
The EUPM PT Commissioner is advised to terminate [the complainant]’s contract with immediate effect”.
Načelniku EUPM PT se svetuje, da odpove pogodbo o zaposlitvi s takojšnjim učinkom.
As the legal basis for the termination of the contract, the Legal Adviser referred to paragraph 15 of the contract, which provides that “in the case of serious misconduct, the Employer reserves the right to terminate the Employee’s contract without prior wri en notice.”
Pravni svetovalec je kot pravno podlago za odpoved pogodbe navedel točko 15 te pogodbe, ki določa, da “ima delodajalec v primeru zelo slabega vedenja delojemalca pravico, da brez predhodnega pisnega obvestila prekine njegovo pogodbo o zaposlitvi.”
The Police Head of Mission decided to terminate the complainant’s contract as from 8 December 2002.
Policijski vodja misije se je odločil prekiniti pogodbo pritožnika z 8. decembrom 2002.
2.6 Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration) includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken.
2.6 Člen 41 Listine Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah (pravica do dobrega upravljanja) vključuje pravico vsake osebe, da je zaslišana, preden se sprejme kakršenkoli individualni ukrep, ki bi zanjo imel škodljiv vpliv.
On the basis of the evidence available to the Ombudsman, it appears that the complainant was never given the opportunity to express his views on the supposed facts which formed the basis of the disciplinary action against him.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih dokazov ni razvidno, da bi bila pritožniku dana možnost povedati mnenje o domnevnih dejstvih, ki predstavljajo osnovo za disciplinski ukrep proti njemu.
This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
To je bil primer nepravilnosti.
Given that the complainant’s contract was terminated more than one year ago, it is not appropriate to propose a friendly solution.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je bila pritožnikova pogodba o zaposlitvi prekinjena pred več kot letom dni, ni primerno predlagati sporazumno rešitev.
The Ombudsman therefore makes the critical remark below.
Zato Varuh daje kritično pripombo.
The claims of the complainant
Zahteve pritožnika
3.1 The complainant claims that the Council should clear him of the allegations against him and that he should receive his salary for the whole month of December 2002.
3.1 Zahteval je, da ga Svet razbremeni obtožb, prav tako pa je zahteval izplačilo plače za celoten december 2002.
3.2 The Ombudsman suggests that the most useful course of action would be for the complainant to make the above claims directly to the Council, which could consider them in the light of the Ombudsman’s findings and conclusion under point 2.6 above.
3.2 Varuh je menil, da bi bil zanj najbolj primeren postopek, da postavi zgoraj omenjene zahteve direktno Svetu, ki bi jih obravnaval v skladu z ugotovitvami Varuha in stališčem, navedenim pod točko 2.6 zgoraj.
In case of an unsatisfactory reply from the Council, the complainant would then have the possibility either to take the case to a court of competent jurisdiction, or to make a new complaint to the European Ombudsman.
V primeru nezadovoljivega odgovora Sveta bi nato pritožnik imel možnost, da zadevo predloži pristojnemu sodišču ali pa se ponovno pritoži pri Varuhu.
4.1 The complainant alleges that the Council did not reply to the two registered le ers he sent with regard to his dismissal.
4.1 Pritožnik trdi, da Svet ni odgovoril na dve priporočeni pismi, ki ju je poslal v zvezi z svojim odpustom.
The Council did not comment on this point, but merely noted that it did not intervene in the complainant’s recruitment or dismissal.
Svet tega ni komentiral, temveč je zgolj sporočil, da ni sodeloval pri zaposlitvi ali odpustu pritožnika.
4.3 Principles of good administration require that the institutions reply to le ers sent by citizens67.
4.2 Služba Varuha je od pritožnika zahtevala kopij i dveh priporočenih pisem, ki ju je poslal Svetu.
In the present case, it appears that the Council has neither replied to the complainant’s le er, nor explained the reasons for its failure to reply.
Drugo pismo z dne 18. marca 2003 je bilo 19. marca 2003 s priporočeno pošto poslano vodji enote v GD A (osebje in administracija) generalnega sekretariata Sveta.
This constitutes an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman makes the critical remark below.
To je primer nepravilnosti, zato Varuh daje kritično pripombo.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into parts 2 and 4 of this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remarks:
Na osnovi preiskave Varuha glede 2. in 4. dela pritožbe je treba podati naslednje kritične pripombe:
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (right to good administration) includes the right of every person to be heard before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken.
Člen 41 Listine Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah (pravica do dobrega upravljanja) vključuje pravico vsake osebe, da je zaslišana, preden je sprejet kakršenkoli individualni ukrep, ki bi zanjo imel škodljiv vpliv.
Principles of good administration require that the institutions reply to le ers of citizens68
Načela dobrega upravljanja zahtevajo, da institucij e odgovorijo na pisma državljanov.68
Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ti vidiki pritožbe nanašajo na postopke v zvezi s posebnimi dogodki v preteklosti, si ni primerno prizadevati za poravnavo.
INCORRECT INFORMATION IN A TENDER PROCEDURE
NAPAČNE INFORMACIJ E V POSTOPKU ZA ODDAJO NAROČILA
Decision on complaint 1351/2001/(ME)(MF)BB against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1351/2001/(ME)(MF)BB zoper Evropsko komisij o
According to the complaint lodged in September 2001, the complainant was the Project Director of “Integration GmbH” Consortium concerning the Tender EuropeAid/112404/C/SV (lot 1) Monitoring the implementation of projects (Tacis and Balkans).
Glede na pritožbo, vloženo septembra 2001, je bil pritožnik projektni vodja konzorcij a “Integration GmbH” glede razpisa EuropeAid/112404/C/SV (skupina 1) Nadzor izvajanja projektov (Tacis in Balkan). Pritožil se je v imenu konzorcij a.
On 5 June 2001, the tender Monitoring the implementation of projects (Tacis and Balkans) for a service contract was launched by the European Commission, together with four other lots.
Evropska komisij a je 5. junij a 2001 objavila razpis Nadzor izvajanja projektov (Tacis in Balkan) za pogodbo o izvajanju storitev, skupaj s štirimi drugimi.
On 9 July 2001, “Integration GmbH” Consortium submi ed a bid under call for tenders No.
Konzorcij“Integration GmbH” je Uradu za sodelovanje EuropeAid v okviru Komisij e 9. julij a 2001 podal ponudbo na javni razpis št.
Europeaid.112404/C/SV (lot 1) to the Commission, EuropeAid Cooperation Offi ce.
Europeaid.112404/C/SV (razpis 1).
On 18 June 2001, before submi ing the bid, the complainant together with other tenderers requested clarification from the Commission of some points in the terms of reference.
Preden je dal ponudbo, je pritožnik 18. junij a 2001 skupaj z ostalimi ponudniki od Komisij e zahteval pojasnilo glede nekaterih točk formalnih pogojev.
One of the questions put by the complainant to the Commission concerned the financial evaluation.
Eno izmed vprašanj, ki jih je pritožnik postavil Komisij i, se je nanašalo na finančno vrednotenje.
The complainant asked whether it was based on unit prices or global price.
Pritožnik je vprašal, ali se nanaša na ceno enote ali na celotno ceno.
On 20 June 2001, the Commission replied to the complainant that “The assessment of the financial off er is made on the basis of the unit prices/ fi fixed costs, and fees” (point B in the clarification le er entitled “Cost Breakdown and Financial
Komisij a je 20. junij a 2001 pritožniku odgovorila, da je “ocenitev finančne ponudbe narejena na podlagi cene enote/fiksnih stroškov ter honorarjev” (točka B pojasnilnega pisma z naslovom “Razčlemba stroškov in finančna ponudba”).
The complainant’s proposal contained a high number of
Pritožnik je zato svoj predlog osnoval na
Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Člen 13 Evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev.
“ working days by expert” as he was aware that a higher number of working days by expert is not automatically to a tenderer’s detriment when the tender is based on unit prices.
Pritožnikov predlog je vključeval veliko število “delovnih dni strokovnjaka”, ker je pritožnik menil, da to ne gre avtomatično v škodo ponudnika, v primeru da ponudba temelji na ceni enote.
On 7 September 2001, the complainant heard rumours that he might have lost the tender on the basis of global price and that another tenderer was awarded the contract because his proposal contained a substantially lower input of “working days by expert”.
Pritožnik je 7. septembra 2001 slišal govorice, da je naročilo verjetno izgubil na osnovi celotne cene in da je bilo naročilo dodeljeno drugemu ponudniku, katerega predlog je vseboval bistveno nižji vložek “delovnih dni strokovnjaka”.
The complainant then wrote to the Commission on 11 September 2001, to ask for clarification of the method of price evaluation.
Pritožnik je 11. septembra 2001 pisal Komisij i z zahtevo po pojasnitvi metode vrednotenja cen. V telefonskem razgovoru s Komisij o mu je bilo rečeno, da na njegovo drugo pismo ne bo dobil odgovora.
The contract was awarded to another tenderer for a period of six months.
Naročilo je bilo za obdobje šestih mesecev dodeljeno drugemu ponudniku.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged possible irregularities in the handling of the tender.
V svoji pritožbi pri Varuhu je pritožnik navedel, da je v postopku obravnave ponudbe mogoče prišlo do nepravilnosti.
The claims of the complainant were summarised in the following main points:
Zahteve pritožnika so bile povzete v naslednjih glavnih točkah:
(i) The complainant wants to be informed whether the evaluation was really based on unit prices.
Pritožnik bi bil rad obveščen o tem, ali je vrednotenje v resnici temeljilo na ceni enote.
(ii) If the financial evaluation was made on the basis of the global price, the Commission should suspend the procedure and review whether the use of this wrongful evaluation method resulted in an incorrect ranking of tenders.
(ii) Če je bilo finančno vrednotenje izvedeno na podlagi celotne cene, bi Komisij a morala začasno prekiniti postopek in preveriti, ali je uporaba napačne metode vrednotenja povzročila nepravilno razvrstitev ponudnikov.
If this were the case, the proposals should be recalculated on the basis of unit prices.
V tem primeru bi morala biti ponudba ponovno preračunana na podlagi cene enote.