natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In a proposal for a friendly solution, he suggested that the Commission should reconsider its refusal to release the guarantee sum and consider paying interest.
Prav tako ni bil zadovoljen z odgovorom Komis` e na pritožnikove obtožbe glede varšÏine. Predlagal je sporazumno rešitev, in sicer da naj Komis` a znova premisli o izplaÏilu varšÏine in zamudnih obresti.
In reply, the Commission referred to the extremely complex structure of the project, which involved more than 90 contractors and sub-contractors.
Komis` a se je v odgovoru znova sklicevala na izjemno zapletenost in obsežnost projekta, v katerem je sodelovalo veÏ kot 90 izvajalcev in podizvajalcev.
It oTered its apologies for the delays but submimed that they could hardly be considered substantial.
OpraviÏila se je za zamudo, vendar trdila, da ni pretirana.
The Commission also argued that the early release of a partial final payment to some of the principal contractors would not be consistent with the common responsibility of all contractors under the Galilei grant contract.
Menila je, da bi bilo zgodnje izplaÏilo delnega zneska nekaterim glavnim izvajalcem v nasprotju s skupno odgovornostjo vseh izvajalcev po pogodbi o dodeljevanju sredstev v projektu Galilei.
The Ombudsman noted that there was nothing to suggest that the Commission had not been aware of the complexity of the contract when it commimed itself to making payments within a certain period of time.
Varuh je ugotovil, da se je Komis` a oÏitno zavedala zapletenosti in obsežnosti pogodbe, ko se je zavezala k plaÏilu v doloÏenem obdobju.
Although comparatively small, the delays constituted maladministration.
Jeprav so bile zamude razmeroma majhne, gre kljub temu za nepravilnost.
As regards the guarantee sum, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission was fully entitled — and even obliged — to take measures to protect the Community’s financial interests when entering into contracts.
Kar zadeva varšÏino, je varuh menil, da je bila Komis` a pri sklepanju pogodb upraviÏena – pravzaprav celo obvezana – poskrbeti za zašÏito fi na n Ï ni h interesov Skupnosti.
However, he was not convinced that the Commission would have been unable to release the sum to the complainant, given that the Commission had not called into doubt the quality of the complainant’s work or the costs it had declared.
Ni pa bil prepriÏan, da je imela razloge, da pritožniku varšÏine ne izplaÏa, saj ni dvomila o kakovosti njegovega dela ali stroških, ki jih je pr`avil.
Given that the Commission had in the meantime released the payment, however, there were no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.
Ker je Komis` a medtem varšÏino izplaÏala, ni bilo veÏ razlogov za nadaljevanje preiskave o tem vidiku primera.
As regards the claim for interest, the Ombudsman considered that the structure of the contractual arrangement in the present case had made it very unlikely that the Commission would ever have to pay interest in cases where it failed to forward payments due to sub-contractors in time. The Ombudsman made a draW recommendation to the Commission that it should compensate the complainant.
Kar zadeva zahtevo za obresti, je varuh menil, da je zaradi vsebine pogodbenega dogovora malo verjetno, da bo morala Komis` a plaÏati obresti v primerih, ko ni pravoÏasno izvedla izplaÏil za podizvajalce, vendar je nanjo vseeno naslovil osnutek priporoÏila, naj pritožniku ponudi odškodnino.
The Commission rejected the draW recommendation on the basis that it had not required the contractors to use a particular model of sub-contracting contract and that, therefore, the complainant could have negotiated specific conditions for the payment of interest with the intermediary.
Komis` a je osnutek priporoÏila zavrnila, Ïeš da od izvajalcev ni zahtevala, naj pri sklepanju pogodb s podizvajalci uporab`o doloÏen vzorec pogodbe, zato bi se lahko pritožnik s posrednikom dogovoril o posebnih doloÏilih o plaÏilu obresti.
The Ombudsman took the view that it did not appear very likely that a small or medium-sized company, such as the complainant, could demand changes to the conditions of a model contract.
Varuhu se je zdelo malo verjetno, da bi malo ali srednje veliko podjetje, kot je pritožnik, lahko zahtevalo spremembo doloÏil vzorÏne pogodbe.
However, since this possibility could not be excluded, the Ombudsman’s earlier finding concerning the payment of interest could not be maintained.
Ker pa te možnosti ni bilo mogoÏe izkljuÏiti, je moral varuh svoje prejšnje ugotovitve o plaÏilu obresti umakniti.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considered that small and medium-sized companies hardly had a realistic possibility of taking part in such projects in circumstances like these.
Toda vseeno je menil, da mala in srednje velika podjetja v takšnih okolišÏinah nimajo veliko možnosti za sodelovanje v tovrstnih projektih.
He therefore made a further remark suggesting that the Commission could consider altering its standard contractual practice so that payment of interest to contractors in respect of amounts due to sub-contractors that have properly fulfilled their obligations would become automatic.
Zato je pripomnil, naj Komis` a razmisli o sklepanju drugaÏnih pogodb, ki bodo predvidele samodejno izplaÏilo zamudnih obresti izvajalcem za zneske, namenjene podizvajalcem, ki so izpolnili vse svoje obveznosti.
In the Ombudsman’s view, such a change would constitute a useful confirmation of the Commission’s commitment to the interests of small and medium-sized companies.
Menil je, da bi Komis` a s tako spremembo dokazala, da je zavezana interesom malih in srednje velikih podjet` .
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had taken note of the critical remark and the further remark and that it will try to take into account the interests of SMEs in future standard contracts to the extent that this is compatible with the Community’s financial interests and the legislative provisions in force.
Komis` a je varuha obvestila, da je seznanjena z njegovo kritiÏno oceno in dodatno pripombo ter da bo v prihodnjih standardnih pogodbah poskušala upoštevati interes malih in srednje velikih podjet` , in sicer v tolikšni meri, kolikor je to v skladu s fi na n Ï ni mi interesi Skupnosti in obstojeÏimi zakonskimi doloÏbami.
THE COMMISSION’S HANDLING OF A TENDER PROCEDURE
RAVNANJE KOMISL E V POSTOPKU JAVNEGA RAZPISA
Summary of decision on complaint 538/2004/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 538/2004/TN zoper Evropsko komis` o
The Commission rejected the complainant company’s oTer under a call for tenders.
Komis` a je zavrnila ponudbo, ki jo je podjetje pritožnik oddalo na javnem razpisu. Pritožnik je med drugim trdil, da mu je Komis` a pošiljala nejasna sporoÏila, v katerih je navajala nedosledne razloge za zavrnitev ponudbe.
The complainant further questioned why it had not received a certain lemer from the Commission by fax.
Zanimalo ga je še, zakaj ni prejel nekega pisma Komis` e po faksu.
Finally, the complainant explained that it had received indications that, contrary to the wording of the call for tender, one of the bids accepted had been submimed only as an original, without copies.
Navedel je tudi, da je slišal namige, da je bila ena od sprejetih ponudb oddana le kot izvirnik, brez kop` , kar je v nasprotju s pogoji razpisa.
The Commission stated that, in response to a message from the complainant, it had provided additional information on the reasons for rejecting the complainant’s bid.
Komis` a je izjavila, da je v odgovoru na sporoÏilo pritožnika posredovala dodatne informac` e o razlogih za zavrnitev njegove ponudbe.
It explained that it has no obligation to send lemers by fax but that it normally does so and that, according to its internal rules (the Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures), it does not consider inadmissible a bid that is not submimed in three copies.
Pojasnila je, da ni dolžna faksirati pisem, vendar to obiÏajno poÏne, in da na podlagi svojih internih pravil (vodniku po postopkih javnih naroÏil) ponudb, ki niso oddane v treh kop`ah, ne obravnava kot nedopustnih.
The Ombudsman found that the complainant had wrimen to the Commission trying to rebut the lamer’s reasons for rejecting its bid and that, in reply, the Commission had provided further reasons for rejecting the bid, without explaining that these reasons were additional to the ones given in its first lemer.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ugotovil, da je pritožnik pisal Komis` i in skušal izpodb`ati njene razloge za zavrnitev ponudbe, Komis` a pa mu je v odgovoru posredovala nadaljnje razloge za zavrnitev, ne da bi pojasnila, da so to dodatni razlogi, poleg tistih, ki jih je navedla v prvem pismu.
Furthermore, the Commission did not appear to have acknowledged or answered the complainant’s amempt to rebut the first reasons given for rejecting the bid.
Poleg tega je oÏitno prezrla pritožnikov poskus, da bi izpodb`al njene prvotne razloge za zavrnitev ponudbe, in tudi ni odgovorila nanj.
In the Ombudsman’s view, therefore, the Commission had failed to reply as completely and accurately as possible to the complainant’s lemer, as required by the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. The Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark.
Zato je varuh ocenil, da odgovor Komis` e na pritožnikovo pismo ni bil karseda popoln in natanÏen, kakor zahteva evropski kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, in napisal kritiÏno oceno.
The Ombudsman also made two further remarks.
Imel je tudi dve dodatni pripombi.
The first suggested that the Commission consider formalising and clarifying its procedures with regard to the sending by fax of lemers concerning the evaluation of bids.
V prvi je predlagal, naj Komis` a oblikuje jasna pravila o faksiranju pisem, ki se nanašajo na vrednotenje ponudb.
The second noted that point 10.5 of the Vade Mecum on public procurement procedures does not seem to correspond to the wording of the call for tender in question, which suggests that bids not submimed in one signed original and two copies will not be considered valid.
V drugi je zapisal, da toÏka 10.5 vodnika o postopkih javnih naroÏil ni v skladu z vsebino zadevnega javnega razpisa, kjer je navedeno, da ponudbe, ki ne bodo posredovane v enem izvirniku in dveh kop`ah, ne bodo veljavne.
In order to avoid the possible appearance of unfairness in the future, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission re-examine the relationship between the Vade Mecum and calls for tenders as regards the number of copies of bids that are required to be submimed. ed.
Da bi se v prihodnje izognili obtožbam o nepraviÏnosti, je varuh predlagal, naj Komis` a ponovno preuÏi razmerje med vodnikom in vsebino javnih razpisov, kar zadeva število kop` ponudb.
In reply to the critical remark, the Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, although it considered itself to have correctly applied the relevant procedural rules, it agreed that, in principle, replies to correspondence should be as complete as possible and that eTorts have to be made to this eTect.
Komis` a je v odgovor na kritiÏno oceno varuha obvestila, da se – Ïeprav je po lastnem mnenju pravilno uporabila ustrezna postopkovna pravila – strinja s tem, da morajo biti odgovori na pisma naÏeloma Ïim popolnejši, in da si že prizadeva za to.
As regards the first further remark, the Commission noted that the rule that unsuccessful tenderers are informed by postal mail, fax, or e-mail only applies to the initial notification, whereas the urgency of further communication has to be assessed by the contracting authority on a case by case basis.
V zvezi s prvo dodatno pripombo je navedla, da pravilo o obvešÏanju neuspešnih ponudnikov po pošti, faksu ali e-pošti velja le za prvo obvestilo, o nujnosti nadaljnje komunikac`e pa mora organ, ki je naroÏnik, presoditi v vsakem primeru posebej.
As regards the second further remark, the Commission stated that the Vade Mecum provides general rules but that the contracting authority is entitled to lay down specific rules on the number and form of the bids and that the tenderers’ compliance with these rules has to be assessed with regard to the principles of proportionality, equal treatment, nondiscrimination and broadest competition, as laid down in Article 89 of the Financial Regulation.
V zvezi z drugo dodatno pripombo je Komis` a navedla, da vodnik po postopkih javnih naroÏil vsebuje splošna pravila, naroÏnik pa je upraviÏen opredeliti še dodatna pravila o številu in obliki ponudb, ter da je treba skladnost ponudb s temi pravili oceniti ob upoštevanju naÏel sorazmernosti, enakega obravnavanja, nediskriminac`e in najširšega možnega kroga ponudnikov, doloÏenih v Ïlenu 89 fi na n Ï ne uredbe.
RIGHT OF DEFENCE DURING AN ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY
PRAVICA DO OBRAMBE MED UPRAVNO PREISKAVO
Summary of decision on complaint 620/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 620/2004/PB zoper Evropsko komis` o
A Commission oU cial had lodged a complaint alleging harassment against the complainant, also a Commission oUcial.
Uradnik Komis` e je pritožnika, prav tako uradnika Komis`e, obtožil nadlegovanja.
The Commission set up a team of investigators to conduct an administrative inquiry into the allegation.
Komis` a je sestavila preiskovalno skupino, ki naj bi opravila upravno preiskavo o tej obtožbi.
The inquiry took place at a time when it appears that there were no wrimen rules regarding the conducting of such an inquiry.
Preiskava je potekala v obdobju, ko še ni obstajal pravilnik o izvedbi takšnih preiskav.
The Ombudsman considered that the right to a hearing applied in the present case. However, it did not require that all the materials relied on by the investigators be communicated to the complainant, provided that, before the inquiry report was finalised, the complainant was notified of, and given a reasonable opportunity to comment on, the preliminary factual findings made by the investigators and the substance of the relevant supporting evidence.
Ocenil je, da je imel pritožnik v tem primeru pravico do zaslišanja, ni pa bilo potrebe, da se mu posreduje vse gradivo, na katerega so se oprli preiskovalci, Ïe je bil pred dokonÏanjem poroÏila o preiskavi obvešÏen o njihovih predhodnih ugotovitvah dejstev in vsebini zadevnih dokazov ter Ïe mu je bila dana primerna priložnost za pripombe nanje.
It appeared that the investigating team had in fact finalised the report and forwarded it to the relevant Director-General without informing the complainant of, and without giving him a reasonable opportunity to comment on, its preliminary findings and the evidence relied upon.
Izkazalo se je, da je preiskovalna skupina res dokonÏala poroÏilo in ga posredovala ustreznemu generalnemu direktoratu, ne da bi pritožnika obvestila o svojih predhodnih ugotovitvah dejstev in dokazih, na katere se sklicuje, in ne da bi mu dala primerno priložnost za pripombe nanje.
In the Ombudsman’s view, this amounted to a failure to respect the complainant’s right of defence and therefore to an instance of maladministration.
Po mnenju varuha je šlo v tem primeru za kršenje pritožnikove pravice do obrambe in poslediÏno tudi za nepravilnost.
ACCESS TO FISHERIES IN AZOREAN WATERS
DOSTOP DO RIBOLOVNIH OBMOJL V VODAH AZORSKEGA OTOJJA
Summary of decision on complaint 1273/2004/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1273/2004/GG zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the extent to which fishing was permimed prior to 1 August 2004 in the “Azorean waters”, that is, waters surrounding the Azores, a group of islands belonging to Portugal.
Pritožba se je nanašala na dovoljeni obseg ribolova v vodah Azorskega otoÏja – tj. skupine otokov, ki pripadajo Portugalski – pred 1. avgustom 2004.
Since the accession of Portugal to the European Communities in 1986, certain transitional provisions had been applicable to fisheries in the Azorean waters.
Po pristopu Portugalske k Evropskim skupnostim leta 1986 so za ribolov v vodah Azorskega otoÏja veljale nekatere prehodne doloÏbe.
These provisions, the most important of
Te doloÏbe –
20, eT ectively which were ultimately laid down in Council Regulations (EC) Nos 685/95 and 2027/95 reserved the right to fish in Azorean waters to Portugal.
20 najpomembnejše so dokonÏno opredeljene v Uredbah Sveta (ES) št. 685/95 in št. 2027/95
Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/200321, which entered into force on 14 November 2003, eT ectively repealed the old system governing access to Azorean waters, as set out in Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1954/2003,21 ki je zaÏela veljati 14. novembra 2003, je razveljavila stari sistem, ki je urejal dostop do voda Azorskega otoÏja, opredeljen v Uredbah št. 685/95 in št. 2027/95.
Article 11 provided for the adoption of a Regulation, by 31 July 2004 at the latest, fixing the maximum annual fishing eTort for each Member State and for each fishery.
Jlen 11 je predvidel uredbo, ki naj bi opredelila najveÏjo dovoljeno letno koliÏino ribolovnega napora za vsako državo Ïlanico in vsako ribolovno obmoÏje in ki naj bi bila sprejeta najpozneje do 31. jul` a 2004. Slednja uredba je bila sprejeta 19. jul` a 2004 in je zaÏela veljati 5. avgusta 2004.
According to Article 15 of the Regulation, Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 were to be repealed with eT ect from the date of entry into force of the Article 11 Regulation or 1 August 2004, whichever was the earlier.
V Ïlenu 15 Uredbe št. 1954/2003 je doloÏeno, da Uredbi št. 685/95 in št. 2027/95 prenehata veljati z dnem, ko zaÏne veljati uredba iz Ïlena 11, ali 1. avgusta 2004, odvisno od tega, kaj nastopi prej.
The question thus arose of whether the old system had been repealed on 14 November 2003, when Regulation 1954/2003 entered into force, or on 1 August 2004, the date mentioned in Article 15 of Regulation 1954/2003.
Zato se je pojavilo vprašanje, ali je bil stari sistem razveljavljen 14. novembra 2003, ko je zaÏela veljati Uredba št. 1954/2003, ali 1. avgusta 2004, na dan, omenjen v Ïlenu 15 te uredbe.
Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing eTort relating to certain Community fi fishing areas and resources, OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 685/95 z dne 27. marca 1995 o upravljanju ribolovnega napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi obmoÏji in viri Skupnosti, UL 1995 L 71, str. 5.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing eTort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources, OJ 1995 L 199, p. 1.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2027/95 z dne 15. jun` a 1995 o vzpostavitvi sistema upravljanja ribolovnega napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi obmoÏji in viri Skupnosti, UL 1995 L 199, str. 1.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the management of the fishing eTort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 685/95 and (EC) No 2027/95, OJ 2003 L 289, p. 1.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1954/2003 z dne 4. novembra 2003 o upravljanju ribolovnega napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi obmoÏji in viri Skupnosti ter o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 2847/93 in razveljavitvi Uredb (ES) št. 685/95 in (ES) št. 2027/95, UL 2003 L 289, str. 1.
The Ombudsman recalled that it is good administrative practice for the administration to avoid legal errors and inconsistencies in its public statements and to acknowledge and correct any errors that may occur.
Varuh je opomnil, da se mora javna uprava v izjavah za javnost v skladu z naÏelom dobrega upravljanja izogibati pravnim napakam in nedoslednostim ter priznati in popraviti morebitne napake.
He noted that the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant rules was based on the principle that, in the event of a conflict between two legal acts, the more recent prevails (lex posterior derogat legi priori).
Ugotovil je, da si je Komis` a zadevna pravila razlagala na podlagi naÏela, da v primeru navzkrižja dveh pravnih aktov prevlada tisti, ki je zaÏel veljati pozneje (lex posterior derogat legi priori).
In the Ombudsman’s view, the application of this legal maxim was justified if two conditions were fulfilled, namely (i) that the more recent act is incompatible with the older one and (ii) that the issue of the relationship between the two acts has not been semled by the legislator in a d iT erent way.
Po varuhovem mnenju je bila uporaba tega naÏela upraviÏena, Ïe sta bila izpolnjena dva pogoja, in sicer (i) da je novejši akt nezdružljiv s starejšim in (ii) da zakonodajalec razmerja med tema aktoma ni uredil kako drugaÏe.
The Ombudsman noted that the first condition was fulfilled in the present case.
Ocenil je, da je bil v tem primeru prvi pogoj izpolnjen.
However, Regulation 1954/2003 contained an explicit provision concerning the date on which the repeal of Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 was to take eT ect and this date was not 14 November 2003.
Vendar Uredba št. 1954/2003 vsebuje izrecno doloÏbo o datumu, ko se razveljavita Uredbi št. 685/95 in št. 2027/95, in ta datum ni 14. november 2003.
The Ombudsman considered that the most logical interpretation of this provision was that the legislator had intended that the 1995 Regulations should not be repealed with immediate eT ect but only a W er the “Article 11 Regulation” had been adopted or a W er a period s u U cient for its adoption had passed, a period the end of which the legislator fixed at 1 August 2004.
Po varuhovi oceni si je mogoÏe to doloÏbo najbolj smiselno razlagati tako, da je bil zakonodajalÏev namen ta, da se uredbi iz leta 1995 ne razveljavita takoj, ampak šele po sprejemu uredbe iz Ïlena 11 ali po preteku obdobja, dovolj dolgega za sprejem te uredbe, namreÏ 1. avgusta 2004.
The Ombudsman considered that this interpretation was confirmed by the wording and the structure of the Regulation and that it was also consistent with the purpose of Article 15 of Regulation 1954/2003.
Varuh je nadalje ocenil, da takšno razlago potrjujeta tako vsebina kot sestava Uredbe št. 1954/2003 ter da je tudi v skladu z namenom njenega Ïlena 15.
Finally, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission itself, in its Explanatory Memorandum for a legislative proposal that it had submimed on 3 February 2004, had confirmed that Regulations 685/95 and 2027/95 had not yet been abolished.
Zapisal je še, da je Komis` a sama v obrazložitvenem memorandumu zakonodajnega predloga, ki ga je predložila 3. februarja 2004, potrdila, da Uredbi št. 685/95 in št. 2027/95 še nista bili razveljavljeni.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s interpretation of Regulation 1954/2003 was erroneous and inconsistent with the position set out in its Explanatory Memorandum of 3 February 2004.
Zaradi tega je menil, da je bila razlaga Uredbe št. 1954/2003, ki jo je posredovala Komis` a, napaÏna in neskladna s stališÏem, ki ga je Komis` a sprejela v obrazložitvenem memorandumu 3. februarja 2004.
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING A CONTRACT IN CHINA
DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV V ZVEZI S POGODBENIM DELOM NA KITAJSKEM
Summary of decision on complaint 1368/2004/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1368/2004/GG zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, a German company, belonged to a consortium with which the Commission had concluded a service contract for the provision of two EU experts, a co-director and a financial/administrative manager, for an environmental project in China.
Pritožnik, nemško podjetje, je bil Ïlan konzorc` a, s katerim je Komis` a podpisala pogodbo o opravljanju storitev, po kateri naj bi za okoljski projekt na Kitajskem zagotovil dva strokovnjaka EU, sodirektorja ter fi na n Ï ne ga oziroma upravnega vodjo.
An expert employed by the complainant was appointed financial/administrative manager and, following an addendum to his contract, eT ectively became deputy co-director.
Strokovnjak, ki ga je zaposlil pritožnik, je bil imenovan za fi na n Ï ne ga oziroma upravnega vodjo in na podlagi aneksa k pogodbi postal tudi namestnik sodirektorja.