natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The European Parliament and Commission agreed in 2004 to accept a shorter time limit of two months for complaints against refusal of access to documents.
Evropski parlament in Komis` a sta leta 2004 privolila v krajši rok, in sicer dva meseca, za pritožbe zoper zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov.
During 2005, the European Commission adopted a new internal procedure to give individual Commissioners greater ownership of the Commission’s handling of the Ombudsman’s inquiries.
Leta 2005 je Evropska komis` a sprejela nov notranji postopek, ki daje posameznim komisarjem veÏ besede pri tem, kako bo Komis` a ukrepala v zvezi s preiskavami varuha Ïlovekovih pravic.
Under the former system, which was adopted in 1994 and revised in 1995, only the President of the Commission was empowered to transmit communications and documents to the Ombudsman.
V prejšnjem sistemu, ki je bil sprejet leta 1994 in prenovljen leta 1995, je bil za sporoÏila in dokumente, namenjene varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic, pristojen le predsednik Komis` e.
The Ombudsman has welcomed the new procedure, which should help ensure the consistency and quality of the Commission’s responses to complaints.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je novi postopek pozdravil, saj naj bi zagotavljal doslednost in kakovost v odgovorih Komis` e pritožnikom.
The principle of fair procedure requires that the Ombudsman’s decision on a complaint must not take into account information contained in documents provided either by the complainant or by the Community institution or body, unless the other party has had the opportunity to see the documents and give its point of view.
NaÏelo poštenega postopka zahteva, da varuh Ïlovekovih pravic pri odloÏanju v zvezi s pritožbo ne sme upoštevati podatkov iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil pritožnik ali instituc` a ali organ Skupnosti, Ïe druga stranka teh dokumentov ni videla in ni imela možnosti predložiti mnenja.
The Ombudsman therefore sends the opinion of the Community institution or body to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations.
Zato varuh Ïlovekovih pravic pošlje mnenje instituc` e ali organa Skupnosti pritožniku in ga povabi, da poda pripombe.
The same procedure is followed if there are further inquiries into the complaint.
Postopek je enak tudi pri nadaljnjih preiskavah v zvezi s pritožbo.
Neither the Treaty nor the Statute provides for appeal or other remedies against the Ombudsman’s decisions concerning the handling or outcome of a complaint.
Niti pogodba niti statut ne predvidevata pritožbe ali drugih sredstev zoper odloÏitev varuha Ïlovekovih pravic v zvezi z obravnavanjem ali izidom pritožbe.
However, like all other Community institutions and bodies, the Ombudsman is subject to actions for damages based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty.
Veljajo pa za varuha Ïlovekovih pravic, kot za vse druge instituc` e in organe Skupnosti, odškodninske tožbe na podlagi Ïlena 288 Pogodbe ES.
It is possible in principle to bring such an action based on the Ombudsman’s alleged mishandling of a complaint.
NaÏeloma je mogoÏe takšno tožbo vložiti v primeru domneve, da je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic s pritožbo napaÏno ravnal.
Inspection of the files and hearing of witnesses
Pregled spisov in zaslišanje priÏ
Article 3(2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman requires the Community institutions and bodies to supply the Ombudsman with any information that he requests of them and give him access to the files concerned.
V Ïlenu 3(2) statuta varuha Ïlovekovih pravic se zahteva, da instituc` e in organi Skupnosti varuhu predlož`o vse podatke, ki jih zahteva, in mu o m o g o Ï ` o dostop do zadevnih spisov.
They may refuse only on duly substantiated grounds of secrecy.
Podatke in dostop do spisov lahko zavrnejo le na podlagi utemeljenih razlogov tajnosti.
The Ombudsman’s power to inspect files allows him to verify the completeness and accuracy of the information supplied by the Community institution or body concerned.
Pooblastilo za pregled spisov varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic omogoÏa, da preveri popolnost in toÏnost podatkov, ki mu jih predloži zadevna instituc` a ali organ Skupnosti.
It is therefore an important guarantee to the complainant and to the public that the Ombudsman can conduct a thorough and complete investigation.
Tako sta lahko pritožnik in javnost prepriÏana, da lahko varuh izpelje temeljito in popolno preiskavo.
Article 3(2) of the Statute also requires oUcials and other servants of the Community institutions and bodies to testify at the request of the Ombudsman.
Jlen 3(2) statuta prav tako zahteva, da morajo uradniki in drugi uslužbenci instituc`in organov Skupnosti na zahtevo varuha Ïlovekovih pravic priÏati.
They speak on behalf of and in accordance with instructions from their administrations and continue to be bound by their duty of professional secrecy.
Govor`o v imenu svojih uradov in v skladu z navodili svojih vodstev ter jih še naprej zavezuje dolžnost poslovne tajnosti.
During 2005, the Ombudsman’s power to inspect the institution’s files was used in nine cases.
V letu 2005 je varuh pravico do pregleda spisov instituc` e izkoristil v devetih primerih, pooblastilo za zaslišanje priÏ pa v enem primeru.
The power to hear witnesses was used in one case.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic obravnava pritožbe javno, razen Ïe pritožnik zahteva zaupnost.
Communication from the President in agreement with Vice-President Ms Wallström: Empowerment to adopt and transmit communications to the European Ombudsman and authorise civil servants to appear before the European Ombudsman (SEC(2005) 1227/4), 4 October 2005.
SporoÏilo predsednika v dogovoru s podpredsednico Margot Wallström: Pooblastilo za sprejetje in posredovanje sporoÏil evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic in za nastop državnih uradnikov pred njim (SEC(2005) 1227/4), 4. oktobra 2005.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE ali organa oziroma zaslišanju priÏ (Ïlena 13(3) in 14(2)).
The purpose of this exclusion is to facilitate the exercise by the Ombudsman of his powers of investigation.
Namen tega je varuhu olajšati izvajanje preiskovalnih pristojnosti.
THE OUTCOMES OFINQUIRIES
IZIDI PREISKAV
During an inquiry, the complainant is informed of each new step taken.
Med preiskavo je pritožnik obvešÏen o vsakem novem koraku.
When the Ombudsman decides to close the inquiry, he informs the complainant of the results of the inquiry and of his conclusions.
Ko se varuh Ïlovekovih pravic odloÏi, da bo preiskavo zakljuÏil, pritožnika obvesti o rezultatih preiskave in o svojih ugotovitvah.
The Ombudsman’s decisions are not legally binding and do not create legally enforceable rights or obligations for the complainant, or for the institution or body concerned.
OdloÏitev varuha ni pravno zavezujoÏa in ne ustvarja pravno izvršljivih pravic ali obveznosti za pritožnika oziroma zadevno instituc` o ali organ.
In 2005, the Ombudsman closed 312 inquiries, of which 302 were inquiries into complaints and ten were own-initiative inquiries.
V letu 2005 je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic zakljuÏil 312 preiskav, od tega je 302 zaÏel na osnovi pritožbe, deset pa jih je sprožil na lastno pobudo.
If an inquiry deals with more than one allegation or claim, these may give rise to d iT erent findings by the Ombudsman.
Je se v preiskavi obravnava veÏ kot eno domnevo ali trditev, lahko varuh Ïlovekovih pravic poda veÏ razliÏnih ugotovitev.
In 2005, 114 cases (of which six own-initiatives) were closed with a finding of no maladministration.
Leta 2005 je varuh 114 primerov (od tega jih je šest sprožil na lastno pobudo) zakljuÏil z ugotovitv`o, da ni bilo nepravilnosti.
This is not necessarily a negative outcome for the complainant, who at least receives the benefit of a full explanation from the institution or body concerned of what it has done.
To ne pomeni nujno negativnega izida za pritožnika, saj prejme popolno razlago zadevne instituc` e ali organa o njegovem ravnanju.
Furthermore, even if the Ombudsman does not find maladministration, he may identify an opportunity for the institution or body to improve the quality of its administration in the future.
Ob tem lahko varuh Ïlovekovih pravic, tudi Ïe ne odkr`e nepravilnosti, najde možnosti, kako izboljšati kakovost uprave instituc` ali organov.
In such cases, the Ombudsman makes a further remark.
V takih primerih lahko poda dodatno pripombo.
Cases semled by the institution and friendly solutions
Primeri, ki jih je rešila instituc` a, in sporazumne rešitve
Whenever possible, the Ombudsman tries to achieve a positive-sum outcome that satisfies both the complainant and the institution complained against.
Kjer je mogoÏe, poskuša varuh Ïlovekovih pravic priti do zakljuÏka, ki bi zadovoljil tako pritožnika kot instituc`o, zoper katero je vložena pritožba.
The cooperation of the Community institutions and bodies is essential for success in achieving such outcomes, which help enhance relations between the institutions and citizens and can avoid the need for expensive and time-consuming litigation.
Sodelovanje instituc` in organov Skupnosti je bistveno za doseganje uspešnih rezultatov, ki pripomorejo h krepitvi odnosov med instituc`ami in državljani ter k izogibanju dragim in dolgotrajnim sodnim postopkom.
During 2005, 89 cases were semled by the institution or body itself following a complaint to the Ombudsman.
V letu 2005 sta instituc` a ali organ na podlagi pritožbe varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic sama rešila 89 primerov.
Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
V nekaterih primerih je sporazumna rešitev lahko dosežena, Ïe zadevna instituc` a ali organ pritožniku ponudi nadomestilo. Vsaka takšna ponudba je ex gratia, kar pomeni brez dopustitve pravne odgovornosti in brez oblikovanja precedensa.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES obtaining a rapid reply to unanswered correspondence (see section 2.9 of the Annual Report 1998 for details of the procedure used in such cases).
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE
Critical remarks and draW recommendations
KritiÏne ocene in osnutki priporoÏil
If a friendly solution is not possible or if the search for a friendly solution is unsuccessful, the Ombudsman either closes the case with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned or makes a draW recommendation.
Je sporazumna rešitev ni mogoÏa ali Ïe je poskus sporazumne rešitve neuspešen, varuh Ïlovekovih pravic zakljuÏi primer s kritiÏno oceno za zadevno instituc` o ali organ oziroma oblikuje osnutek priporoÏila.
A critical remark is normally made if it is no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, the maladministration appears to have no general implications and no follow-up action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
KritiÏno oceno varuh ponavadi poda, Ïe zadevna instituc` a ne more veÏ odpraviti nepravilnosti, Ïe nepravilnost nima splošnih posledic in Ïe se zdi, da nadaljnji ukrepi varuha niso veÏ potrebni.
A critical remark is also made if the Ombudsman considers that a draW recommendation would serve no useful purpose or that it is not appropriate to submit a special report in a case where the institution or body concerned fails to accept a draW recommendation.
KritiÏno oceno poda tudi, Ïe meni, da bi bil osnutek priporoÏila neuporaben ali da ni primerno predložiti posebnega poroÏila v primeru, ko zadevna instituc` a ali organ ne sprejme osnutka priporoÏila.
A critical remark confirms to the complainant that his or her complaint is justified and indicates to the institution or body concerned what it has done wrong, so as to help avoid maladministration in the future.
KritiÏna ocena je potrditev pritožniku, da je bila njegova pritožba upraviÏena, in zadevnim instituc`am ali organom nakazuje, kaj so naredili narobe, ter jim tako pomaga izogniti se nepravilnostim v prihodnje.
In 2005, the Ombudsman made 29 critical remarks.
Leta 2005 je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic podal 29 kritiÏnih ocen.
In response to a suggestion from the European Parliament, the Ombudsman informed the institutions and bodies of his intention periodically to request information about any follow-up given to critical remarks.
Na predlog Evropskega parlamenta je varuh obvestil instituc` e in organe o svoji nameri, da bo redno zahteval podatke o tem, kako so kritiÏne ocene upoštevali. V letu 2005 je Komis` a odgovorila na 18 kritiÏnih ocen.
The responses are discussed in the next section (2.8) of this chapter.
Odgovori so obravnavani v razdelku 2.8 tega poglavja.
In cases where follow-up action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary (that is, where it is possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, or in cases where the maladministration is particularly serious, or has general implications), the Ombudsman normally makes a draW recommendation to the institution or body concerned.
V primerih, ko se zdi nadaljnje ukrepanje varuha Ïlovekovih pravic potrebno (kadar lahko zadevna instituc` a nepravilnost odpravi ali kadar so nepravilnosti posebno hude oziroma imajo splošne posledice), varuh ponavadi napiše osnutek priporoÏila za zadevno instituc` o ali organ.
In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the institution or body must send a detailed opinion within three months.
V skladu s Ïlenom 3(6) statuta varuha mora instituc` a ali organ v roku treh mesecev poslati podrobno mnenje.
During 2005, 20 draW recommendations were made.
V letu 2005 je bilo sestavljenih 20 osnutkov priporoÏil.
In addition, eight draW recommendations from 2004 led to decisions in 2005.
Poleg tega je osem osnutkov priporoÏil iz leta 2004 pripeljalo do odloÏb v letu 2005.
Nine cases were closed during the year when a draW recommendation was accepted by the institution.
Devet primerov je bilo zakljuÏenih med letom, ko je instituc` a sprejela osnutek priporoÏila, tr`e primeri so privedli do posebnega poroÏila Evropskemu parlamentu, šest primerov pa je bilo zakljuÏenih zaradi drugih razlogov.
Three cases led to a special report to the European Parliament.
Je instituc` a ali organ Skupnosti ne ponudi zadovoljivega odgovora na osnutek priporoÏila, lahko varuh Ïlovekovih pravic pošlje posebno poroÏilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
Six cases were closed for other reasons.
Posebno poroÏilo lahko vsebuje priporoÏila.
At the end of 2005, 11 draW recommendations were still under consideration, including one made in 2004.
V letu 2005 so bila Parlamentu predložena tri posebna poroÏila (primeri 1391/2002/JMA, 2395/2003/GG in 2485/2004/GG).
DECISIONS CLOSING CASESIN2005
ODLOJBE,S KATERIMISO BILI ZAKLJUJENIPRIMERI VLETU2005
Decisions closing cases are normally published on the Ombudsman’s website (hmp://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) in English and the language of the complainant, if d iT erent.
OdloÏbe, s katerimi se zakljuÏujejo primeri, so obiÏajno objavljene na spletni strani varuha Ïlovekovih pravic (hmp://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) v anglešÏini in v jeziku pritožnika, Ïe gre za drug jezik.
Chapter 3 contains summaries of 65 decisions closing inquiries.
V tretjem poglavju je povzetih 65 odloÏb, s katerimi so se zakljuÏile preiskave.
The summaries reflect the range of subjects and of Community institutions and bodies covered by the total of 312 decisions in 2005 closing inquiries, as well as the d iT erent reasons for closure.
Iz povzetkov je mogoÏe razbrati niz tem ter instituc` in organov Skupnosti, ki so se pojavili v skupno 312 odloÏbah, s katerimi so se leta 2005 zakljuÏile preiskave, prav tako pa je mogoÏe iz povzetkov razbrati razloge za zakljuÏek preiskave.
They are indexed by case reference; general subject mamer in terms of the fi eld of Community competence involved; and the type of maladministration alleged by the complainant.
Razporejene so glede na oznako primera, splošno vsebino, torej po podroÏjih pristojnosti Skupnosti, in vrsto nepravilnosti, ki jo pritožnik domneva.
The rest of this section of chapter 2 analyses the most significant findings of law and fact contained in the decisions.
V nadaljevanju tega razdelka drugega poglavja so analizirane najpomembnejše pravne ugotovitve in dejstva iz odloÏb.
It is organised in terms of a horizontal classification of the main subject mamer of inquiries, constructed around fi ve main categories:
Ti so razvršÏeni v pet glavnih kategor`, glede na predmet preiskave:
Openness (including access to documents and information) and data protection;
• odprtost (vkljuÏno z dostopom do dokumentov in informac` ) ter varstvo podatkov,
The European Commission as guardian of the Treaty;
Evropska komis` a kot „varuh Pogodbe“,
Tenders, contracts and grants;
• javni razpisi, pogodbe in podpora,
Personnel mamers, including recruitment;
• osebne zadeve, vkljuÏno z zaposlitv`o, o,
Other mamers. ers.
• druga vprašanja.
It should be noted that there is substantial overlap between the above categories.
Pri tem velja omeniti, da se te kategor`e v veliki meri prekrivajo.
For example, issues of openness and public access are o W en raised in complaints that concern recruitment or the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaty.
Tako se na primer vprašanja, povezana z odprtostjo in dostopom javnosti, pogosto pojav`o v pritožbah v zvezi z zaposlovanjem ali vlogo Komis` e kot „varuha Pogodbe“.
Openness, public access and the protection of personal data
Odprtost, javni dostop do podatkov in zašÏita osebnih podatkov
A high proportion (24%) of complaints allege lack of openness.
Velik delež pritožb (24 %) se nanaša na pomanjkanje odprtosti.
Treaty provides for a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Jlen 1 Pogodbe o Evropski un`i govori o tem, da je treba odloÏitve v EU sprejemati karseda odprto, Ïlen 255 Pogodbe ES pa zagotavlja pravico do dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis` e.
This right is governed by Regulation 1049/2001 also adopted rules on access to documents, following own-initiative inquiries by the Ombudsman in 1996 and 1999.
Uveljavljanje te pravice ureja Uredba št. 1049/2001.7 Po varuhovih preiskavah na lastno pobudo v letih 1996 in 1999 so pravila o dostopu do dokumentov sprejele tudi nekatere druge instituc` e in organi.
Access to documents and information
Dostop do dokumentov in podatkov
Regulation 1049/2001 gives applicants a choice of remedy: they may challenge a refusal either in court proceedings under Article 230 of the EC Treaty or by complaining to the Ombudsman.
Uredba št. 1049/2001 tožnikom omogoÏa izbiro pravnega sredstva: zavrnitev dostopa lahko spodb`ajo s sodnim postopkom v skladu s Ïlenom 230 Pogodbe ES ali s pritožbo varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic.
During 2005, the Ombudsman made decisions on 14 complaints concerning the application of Regulation 1049/2001, of which 11 were against the Commission, two against the Council and one against the European Parliament.
Leta 2005 je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic sprejel odloÏbe v 14 primerih pritožb v zvezi z izvajanjem Uredbe št. 1049/2001. Od teh jih je bilo 11 uperjenih proti Komis`i, dve proti Svetu in ena proti Evropskemu parlamentu.
Two further decisions concerned the application by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) of their own rules on access to documents.
Še dve odloÏbi sta se nanašali na Evropsko centralno banko in Evropsko investic`sko banko, in sicer v zvezi z njunim izvajanjem lastnih pravil o dostopu do dokumentov.
Of the total of 16 complaints made under Regulation 1049/2001 or other rules on access, eight were from individuals, six were submimed by NGOs and two were from companies.
Od skupno 16 pritožb, vloženih na podlagi Uredbe št. 1049/2001 ali drugih pravil o dostopu do dokumentov, so jih osem vložili posamezniki, šest nevladne organizac` e in dve podjetja.
Eight of the cases will be mentioned further in this sub-section.
V tem podrazdelku bo omenjeno osem primerov.
In case 2066/2004/TN, the Ombudsman examined the overall scheme of Regulation 1049/2001 and took the view that it would be disproportionate and impractical to require the Commission to carry out the same in-depth legal analysis when considering whether to make a legislative document available in electronic form (as required by Articles 2(4) and 12(4) of the Regulation), as it must when dealing with a confirmatory application for access to a document.
V primeru 2066/2004/TN je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic preuÏil celotno shemo Uredbe št. 1049/2001 in podal mnenje, da bi bilo od Komis` e nesorazmerno in nepraktiÏno zahtevati, naj izvede enako poglobljeno pravno analizo, kadar odloÏa o tem, ali omogoÏiti zakonodajni dokument v elektronski
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE obliki (kot se zahteva v Ïlenih 2(4) in 12(4) te uredbe), kakor mora to storiti v primerih potrdilne prošnje za dostop do dokumentov.
The Ombudsman also considered certain exceptions contained in the rules on access to documents of the EIB and the ECB.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je prav tako preuÏil nekatere izjeme pri pravilih o dostopu do dokumentov Evropske investic`ske banke (EIB) in Evropske centralne banke (ECB).
In case 3442/2004/PB, the Ombudsman took the view that the EIB’s rules allowed it to refuse access to information on loans, made through intermediary banks, for small and medium-sized renewable energy projects.
V primeru 3442/2004/PB je ocenil, da lahko EIB v skladu s svojimi pravili zavrne dostop do podatkov o posojilih prek posredniških bank, ki so namenjena za male in srednje velike projekte obnovljive energ`e. e.
In case 3054/2004/TN, the complainant wanted to know whether the ECB had intervened in the foreign exchange markets to so W en the fall in the dollar and the rise in value of the euro.
V primeru 3054/2004/TN je pritožnik želel vedeti, ali je ECB posredovala na deviznih trgih, da bi ublažila padec vrednosti dolarja in rast vrednosti evra.
The Ombudsman considered that the ECB had given the complainant a clear and unequivocal explanation of its reasons for refusing to answer, so that the complainant could understand why the ECB refused to divulge this category of information.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da je ECB pritožniku ponudila jasno in nedvoumno razlago o tem, zakaj ne želi odgovoriti na vprašanje, in bi pritožnik zavrnitev razkritja tovrstnih podatkov lahko razumel.
Since the ECB’s rules contain an exception to protect the public interest as regards monetary and exchange rate stability, the Ombudsman found no reason to pursue the complainant’s claim that the ECB should provide the information in question.
Ker med pravila ECB sodi izjema o zašÏiti javnega interesa v zvezi z monetarno stabilnostjo in stabilnostjo menjalnega teÏaja, varuh ni našel nobenega razloga za uveljavljanje pritožnikove zahteve, naj ECB zadevne podatke posreduje.
Other questions of openness
Druga vprašanja glede odprtosti
The Ombudsman carried out a review of the Commission’s compliance, during a specific consultation procedure, with the fi ve minimum standards for consultation of interested parties set out in its 2002 Communication (COM(2002) 704) and found that there had been no maladministration (case 948/2004/OV).
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je preuÏil, ali je Komis` a v nekem posvetovalnem postopku delovala v skladu s petimi najosnovnejšimi pravili za posvetovanje z zainteresiranimi strankami, kot so navedena v njenem sporoÏilu iz leta 2002 (KOM(2002)0704). Ugotovil je, da ni prišlo do nepravilnosti (primer 948/2004/OV).
The Ombudsman closed three cases during 2005 a W er making draW recommendations to the European Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO) concerning the information available to candidates in recruitment competitions.
LETNO POROČILO 2005
The Ombudsman therefore decided to open an own-initiative inquiry into access to evaluation criteria established by selection boards (see summary of case 2097/2003/PB in section 3.1.3).
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic se je zato odloÏil za preiskavo na lastno pobudo v zvezi z dostopom do meril za ocenjevanje, ki so jih izdelale izbirne komis` e (glejte povzetek primera 2097/2003/PB v razdelku 3.1.3).