natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus while illegality necessarily implies maladministration, maladministration does not automatically entail illegality.
Vendar nemška različica določbe predpisuje, da mora oseba delati vsaj tri leta v obdobju petih let pred izstavitvijo potrdila brez prekinitve.
For example, a finding by the Ombudsman of maladministration based on violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (which is not legally binding as such) does not automatically imply that there is illegal behaviour that could be sanctioned by a court2.
Pritožba, naslovljena na varuha človekovih pravic, je bila nedopustna, saj se ni nanašala na nepravilnosti, ampak na vsebino zakonodaje EU.
In response to a call from the European Parliament for a clear definition of maladministration, the Ombudsman oTered the following definition in his Annual Report 1997:
Da bi lahko varuh človekovih pravic pritožniku koristno svetoval, je primerjal različne jezikovne različice direktive, pri čemer je ugotovil, da v angleški, francoski, španski, portugalski, nizozemski in italijanski ni zahteve po neprekinjeni zaposlitvi.
Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato ocenil, da nemška različica očitno vsebuje napako, ter je o tem obvestil Komisijo in pritožnika.
In 1998, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming this definition.
Komisija se je z njegovo ugotovitvijo strinjala in je prosila pritožnika, naj ji pošlje kopije dopisov s pristojnimi nemškimi oblastmi ter naj jo pooblasti, da v njegovem imenu pri oblasteh posreduje. Varuh človekovih pravic se je Komisiji zahvalil za hiter odgovor in pomoč.
See the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2004 in joined cases T-219/02 and T-337/02, Herrera v Commission, para.
Glejte sodbo SodišÏa prve stopnje z dne 28. oktobra 2004 v združenih primerih T-219/02 in T-337/02, Herrera proti Komis`i, ods.
101 and the Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2004 in Case T-193/04 R Hans-Martin Tillack v Commission, para. 60.
101, in ukaz predsednika SodišÏa prve stopnje z dne 15. oktobra 2004 v primeru T-193/04 R, Hans-Martin Tillack proti Komis`i, ods. 60.
On 6 September 2001, the European Parliament approved a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which European Union institutions and bodies, their administrations and their oUcials should respect in their relations with the public.
Evropski parlament je 6. septembra 2001 potrdil kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, ki ga morajo instituc` e in organi Evropske un`e, njihove uprave in njihovi uradniki spoštovati v stikih z javnostjo.
The Code takes account of the principles of European administrative law contained in the case-law of the Community courts and draws inspiration from national laws.
Kodeks upošteva naÏela evropskega upravnega prava iz sodne prakse sodišÏ Skupnosti in se zgleduje po nacionalnem pravu držav Ïlanic.
Parliament also called on the Ombudsman to apply the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Parlament je k uporabi tega kodeksa pozval tudi varuha Ïlovekovih pravic.
The Ombudsman therefore takes account of the rules and principles contained in the Code when examining complaints and in conducting own-initiative inquiries.
Varuh tako upošteva pravila in naÏela iz kodeksa pri preverjanju pritožb in izvajanju preiskav na lastno pobudo.
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES
doloÏena morata biti avtor in predmet pritožbe (Ïlen 2(3) statuta),
ADMISSIBILITY AND GROUNDSFORINQUIRIES
varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ne sme posredovati v primerih pred sodišÏi ali dvomiti o pravilnosti razsodbe sodišÏa (Ïlen 1(3)),
1. the author and the object of the complaint must be identified (Article 2(3) of the Statute);
pritožnik se mora pritožiti v roku dveh let od datuma, ko se je seznanil z dejstvi, na katerih temelji njegova pritožba (Ïlen 2(4)),
3. the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the amention of the complainant (Article 2(4) of the Statute);
pred pritožbo je moral pritožnik že uporabiti ustrezna upravna sredstva pri pristojnih instituc`ah in organih (Ïlen 2(4)),
5. in the case of complaints concerning work relationships between the institutions and bodies and their oUcials and servants, the possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaints must have been exhausted before lodging the complaint (Article 2(8) of the Statute).
v primeru pritožb v zvezi z delovnimi razmerji med instituc`ami in organi ter njihovimi uradniki in drugimi uslužbenci je treba izkoristiti možnosti za vložitev notranjih upravnih vlog in pritožb, preden se vloži pritožba pri varuhu (Ïlen 2(8)).
Article 195 of the EC Treaty provides for the Ombudsman to “conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds”.
Jlen 195 Pogodbe ES predvideva, da varuh Ïlovekovih pravic „izvede preiskave, za katere ima razloge“.
In some cases, there may not be s u U cient grounds for the Ombudsman to begin an inquiry, even though the complaint is admissible.
V nekaterih primerih morda ni dovolj razlogov za preiskavo, Ïeprav je pritožba dopustna.
An example of a complaint in which there were not sufficient grounds to start an inquiry
Primer pritožbe, pri kateri ni bilo dovolj razlogov za preiskavo
COMPLAINANT ANNOUNCED INTENTION TO BEGIN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
PRITOŽNIK JE IZRAZIL NAMERO, DA SPROŽI SODNI POSTOPEK
The complainant, who worked for a Community body, developed a medical condition and spent prolonged periods on sick leave.
Pritožnik, ki je bil zaposlen pri nekem organu Skupnosti, je zbolel in je veliko časa preživel na bolniškem dopustu.
The appointing authority refused the complainant’s request that an Invalidity Committee be set up and rejected a subsequent appeal made under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Pristojni organ je zavrnil njegovo zahtevo po ustanovitvi odbora za invalidnost, nato pa je zavrnil tudi njegovo pritožbo, vloženo na podlagi člena 90(2) kadrovskih predpisov. Pritožnik se je na varuha človekovih pravic obrnil konec septembra 2005.
The complaint met both the procedural and substantive requirements of admissibility and the complainant was informed accordingly.
Pritožba je ustrezala tako postopkovnim kot vsebinskim zahtevam glede dopustnosti, o čemer je bil pritožnik obveščen.
However, the complainant had stated an intention to contest the rejection of the Article 90(2) appeal before the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnik pa je izrazil tudi namero, da zavrnitev pritožbe izpodbija pred Sodiščem prve stopnje na podlagi člena 90(2).
The deadline for an action to begin expired in early December 2005.
Rok za sprožitev postopka je potekel v začetku decembra 2005.
A complaint to the Ombudsman does not a ect time limits for judicial proceedings (Article 2(6) of the Statute).
Pritožba, naslovljena na varuha človekovih pravic, ne vpliva na časovne roke sodnih postopkov (člen 2(6) statuta).
Furthermore, when the Ombudsman has to close a case because of legal proceedings concerning the facts which have been put forward, the outcome of any inquiries carried out up to that point is led without further action (Article 2(7) of the Statute).
Kadar mora varuh zaradi sodnih postopkov v zvezi z dejstvi, ki so mu bila predstavljena, zaključiti primer, se ugotovitve vseh preiskav, ki jih je do takrat izvedel, brez nadaljnjih postopkov dokončno arhivirajo (člen 2(7) statuta).
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that there were no grounds to open an inquiry.
V teh okoliščinah je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da ni razlogov za sprožitev preiskave.
The complainant was invited to renew the complaint to the Ombudsman, in the event of deciding not to begin court proceedings.
Pritožnik je bil vabljen, da v primeru, če ne bo začel sodnega postopka, pri varuhu človekovih pravic pritožbo obnovi.
During 2005, the Ombudsman received 3 920 new complaints, an increase of 5% compared to 2004.
V letu 2005 je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic prejel 3 920 novih pritožb, kar je 5 % veÏ kot leta 2004.
However, it should be noted that 335 of the new complaints were on the same subject and were treated in a joint inquiry (see summary of case 3452/2004/JMA and others in chapter 3 below).
Pri tem je treba omeniti, da se je 335 novih pritožb nanašalo na isto zadevo in se jih je obravnavalo v skupni preiskavi.
In accordance with established practice, all complaints that give rise to an inquiry are counted in the statistics produced by the Ombudsman.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso mora varuh Ïlovekovih pravic v statistiÏne podatke vkljuÏiti vse pritožbe, za katere se sproži preiskava.
To avoid distortion, however, inadmissible mass complaints sent by e-mail, which o W en number several thousand, are only counted separately in the statistics up to and including the eleventh complaint.
Da ne bi bili podatki zavajajoÏi, pa se zavrnjene množiÏne pritožbe, poslane po elektronski pošti, ki jih je veÏkrat po veÏ tisoÏ, v statistiÏnem prikazu šteje posebej do vkljuÏno 11. pritožbe.
Complaints were sent directly by individual citizens in 3 705 cases and 215 came from associations or companies.
V 3 705 primerih so pritožbe poslali posamezni državljani, 215 pritožb so poslala združenja in podjetja.
The Ombudsman also began fi ve own-initiative inquiries.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je sprožil tudi pet preiskav na lastno pobudo.
During 2005, the process of examining complaints to see if they are within the mandate, meet the criteria of admissibility and provide grounds to open an inquiry was completed in 93% of cases.
V letu 2005 je bilo preverjanje, ali so pritožbe znotraj varuhovih pristojnosti, ali izpolnjujejo merila dopustnosti in ustrezajo pogojem za preiskavo, opravljeno v 93 % primerov.
Of all the complaints examined, just over 30% were within the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Od vseh preverjenih pritožb jih je bilo le nekoliko veÏ kot 30 % v pristojnosti varuha.
Of these, 858 met the criteria of admissibility (including 389 complaints that led to one joint inquiry) but 132 did not provide grounds for an inquiry.
Od teh jih je 858 izpolnjevalo merila dopustnosti (vkljuÏno s 389 pritožbami, ki so pripeljale do ene skupne preiskave), vendar jih 132 ni izpolnjevalo pogojev za preiskavo.
A total of 338 new inquiries were opened during the year on the basis of complaints (including the one joint inquiry mentioned above).
Na osnovi pritožb je bilo med letom sproženih 338 novih preiskav (vkljuÏno z zgoraj omenjeno skupno preiskavo).
The Ombudsman also began fi ve inquiries on his own initiative.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je sprožil tudi pet preiskav na lastno pobudo.
In the analysis of these inquiries in Annex A, the 389 complaints on the same subject-mam er are dealt with as a single joint inquiry.
Pri analizi teh preiskav v prilogi A se 389 preiskav v zvezi z isto zadevo obravnava kot eno skupno preiskavo.
The European Ombudsman dealt with a total of 627 inquiries in 2005, 284 of which were carried over from 2004.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je imel v letu 2005 opravka s skupno 627 preiskavami, od katerih se jih je 284 preneslo iz leta 2004.
As in previous years, most of the inquiries concerned the Commission (68% of the total).
Kot je bilo znaÏilno za prejšnja leta, je najveÏ preiskav (68 %) zadevalo Komis` o.
Given that the Commission is the main Community institution that makes decisions having a direct impact on citizens, it is normal that it should be the principal object of citizens’ complaints.
Da je Komis` a najveÏkrat predmet pritožb državljanov, ni nenavadno, saj je poglavitna instituc` a Skupnosti pri sprejemanju odloÏitev, ki imajo neposreden vpliv na državljane.
There were 73 inquiries concerning the European Communities Personnel Selection OU ce (EPSO), 58 concerning the European Parliament and 14 concerning the Council of the European Union.
73 preiskav je bilo povezanih z Uradom za izbor osebja Evropskih skupnosti (EPSO), 58 z Evropskim parlamentom in 14 s Svetom Evropske un`e. e.
The main types of maladministration alleged were lack of transparency, including refusal of information (188 cases), unfairness or abuse of power (132 cases), discrimination (103 cases), unsatisfactory procedures (78 cases), avoidable delay (73 cases), negligence (44 cases), failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations, that is failure by the European Commission to carry out its role as “guardian of the Treaty” vis-à-vis the Member States (37 cases), and legal error (29 cases).
Najpogostejše domnevne nepravilnosti so bile pomanjkanje preglednosti, vkljuÏno z zavraÏanjem posredovanja podatkov (188 primerov), nepraviÏnost ali zloraba pooblastil (132 primerov), diskriminac`a (103 primeri), nezadovoljivi postopki (78 primerov), izogibna zamuda (73 primerov), malomarnost (44 primerov), neizpolnitev obveznosti, tj. neuspešnost Evropske komis` e v vlogi „varuha Pogodbe“ v odnosu do držav Ïlanic (37 primerov), in pravne napake (29 primerov).
TRANSFERS AND ADVICE
POSREDOVANJEIN NAPOTITVE
If a complaint is outside the mandate or inadmissible, the Ombudsman always tries to advise the complainant of another body that could deal with the complaint, especially if the case involves Community law.
Je pritožba ni v pristojnosti varuha Ïlovekovih pravic ali je nedopustna, poskuša varuh vedno svetovati pritožniku, kateri organ bi jo lahko obravnaval, še posebej Ïe primer vkljuÏuje pravo Skupnosti.
If possible, the Ombudsman transfers the complaint directly to another competent body with the consent of the complainant, provided that there appear to be grounds for the complaint.
Je je mogoÏe, varuh Ïlovekovih pravic s soglasjem pritožnika in v primeru, da se zd`o razlogi za pritožbo utemeljeni, neposredno posreduje pritožbo drugemu pristojnemu organu.
The European Ombudsman co-operates closely with national and regional counterparts in the Member States through the European Network of Ombudsmen (see chapter 5 below).
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic tesno sodeluje s kolegi na nacionalni in regionalni ravni v državah Ïlanicah, in sicer prek evropskega omrežja varuhov Ïlovekovih pravic (glejte 5. poglavje).
During 2005, 114 complaints were transferred.
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE omrežja je omogoÏiti hitro posredovanje pritožb pristojnemu nacionalnemu ali regionalnemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic oziroma podobnemu organu.
Of these, 91 were transferred to a national or regional ombudsman, twelve to the European Parliament to be dealt with as petitions, six to the European
Odbor za petic`e Evropskega parlamenta je prav tako polnopraven Ïlan omrežja.
Commission, and fi ve to SOLVIT
V letu 2005 je bilo posredovanih 114 pritožb, od tega 91 nacionalnemu ali regionalnemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic, 12 Evropskemu parlamentu, ki jih je obravnaval kot petic`e, štiri Evropski komis` i in pet SOLVIT-u.3
In 945 of these, the complainant was advised to turn to a national or regional ombudsman and 144 complainants were advised to petition the European Parliament.
V 945 primerih je pritožniku svetoval, da se obrne na nacionalnega ali regionalnega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic, 144 pritožnikom pa je svetoval, da predlož`o petic`o Evropskemu parlamentu. V 376 primerih je svetoval, da vzpostav`o stik z Evropsko komis` o.
This figure includes some cases in which a complaint against the Commission was declared inadmissible because appropriate administrative approaches had not been made.
Med temi je bilo tudi nekaj primerov, v katerih je bila pritožba zoper Komis` o razglašena za nedopustno, ker pritožnik ni uporabil ustreznih upravnih sredstev.
In 112 cases, the advice was to contact SOLVIT. In 752 cases, the complainant was advised to contact other bodies, mostly specialised ombudsmen or complaints-handling bodies in a Member State.
V 112 primerih je varuh pritožnikom svetoval, da vzpostav`o stik s SOLVIT-om, v 752 primerih pa je svetoval, da vzpostav`o stik z drugimi organi, veÏinoma s specializiranimi varuhi Ïlovekovih pravic ali organi države Ïlanice, ki obravnavajo pritožbe.
VISA REQUIREMENTS FOR NONCITIZEN RESIDENTS
VIZUMI ZA PREBIVALCE, KI NIMAJO DRŽAVLJANSTVA
According to the complainant, a Swedish citizen, Latvia issues special passports to its Russian-speaking inhabitants.
Po navedbah pritožnika, švedskega državljana, izdaja Latvija posebne potne liste za rusko govoreče prebivalce.
The complainant had been informed that the Schengen agreement obliges EU Member States to require visas from Latvians holding special passports.
Pritožnik je bil seznanjen s tem, da schengenski sporazum države članice EU zavezuje, da od Latvijcev s posebnimi potnimi listi zahtevajo vizume.
The complainant claimed that either Latvia should issue ordinary passports to all its inhabitants or that the provision of the Schengen agreement discriminating against Russian-speaking Latvians should be abolished.
Zato je zahteval, da začne Latvija izdajati običajne potne liste za vse svoje prebivalce oziroma da se določbo v schengenskem sporazumu, ki diskriminira rusko govoreče Latvijce, odpravi.
As regards the claim against Latvia, the complainant was advised to turn to the National Human Rights O ce.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pritožniku svetoval, naj se z zahtevo v zvezi z Latvijo obrne na nacionalni urad za človekove pravice.
As regards the Schengen agreement, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant said he had been unable to obtain an explanation as to which of its provisions allowed such discrimination.
Kar zadeva schengenski sporazum, pa je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da je pritožnik navedel, da ni mogel dobiti pojasnila, katera od določb sporazuma naj bi dopuščala takšno diskriminacijo.
In order to assist the complainant to obtain information, the Ombudsman transferred the case to the Commission.
Da bi mu pomagal priti do podatkov, je varuh primer posredoval Komisiji.
The Commission explained to the complainant that Community law does not prevent Member States from exempting holders of Latvian noncitizens’ passports from visa requirements.
Ta je pritožniku pojasnila, da zakonodaja Skupnosti državam članicam dovoljuje, da imetnike latvijskih potnih listov, ki nimajo državljanstva, oprostijo vizumov.
The Commission also pointed out that the legal situation was under review in order to exempt all holders of aliens’ and noncitizens’ passports residing in a Member State from visa requirements.
Komisija je prav tako pojasnila, da preučuje pravni položaj, da bi lahko vizumov oprostili vse prebivalce držav članic, ki imajo tuje potne liste in nimajo državljanstva EU.
DISCRIMINATION IN NATIONAL TAX LAW
DISKRIMINACIJA V NACIONALNI DAVČNI ZAKONODAJI
A German citizen working in Spain complained that the normal progressive rate of income tax in Spain only applied to foreigners once they had worked in Spain for at least 183 days.The complainant alleged discrimination since the rate that applied to him and to his German colleagues was 25 percent, whilst a tax rate of 6 percent to 9 percent applied to his Spanish colleagues.
Nemški državljan, ki dela v Španiji, se je pritožil nad tem, da v Španiji osnovna progresivna stopnja davka na dohodek za tujce velja le, če so v državi delali vsaj 183 dni. Pritožnik je trdil, da gre za diskriminacijo, saj je stopnja, ki je veljala zanj in za njegove nemške kolege, znašala 25 %, medtem ko je za njegove španske kolege veljala davčna stopnja med 6 % in 9 %.
With the complainant’s permission, the Ombudsman transferred the complaint to the Commission.
Ob privolitvi pritožnika je varuh človekovih pravic pritožbo posredoval Komisiji.
The Commission replied rapidly to the complainant, stating that it was aware of the problem and had taken the view that the legislation in question could, in some cases, impair the free movement of workers.
Komisija je nanjo hitro odgovorila, pri čemer je pojasnila, da ve za to težavo in meni, da lahko zadevna zakonodaja v nekaterih primerih ovira prost pretok delavcev.
It had therefore sent a reasoned opinion to the Spanish authorities, asking them to change the relevant provisions.
Zato je španskim oblastem poslala obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem je zahtevala spremembo zadevnih določb.
It was subsequently reported that the Commission had referred the matter to the Court of Justice.
Komisija je pozneje sporočila, da je zadevo predložila Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
ENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
UPRAVIČENOST DO NADOMESTILA ZA PRIMER BREZPOSELNOSTI
The French organisation managing unemployment insurance payments (Assedic) agreed to pay unemployment benefits to the complainant, a French citizen, provided she attended a training course.
Francoska ustanova, ki upravlja zavarovalnine v primeru brezposelnosti (Assedic), se je s pritožnico, francosko državljanko, dogovorila, da ji plača nadomestilo za brezposelnost pod pogojem, da se bo udeležila usposabljanja. Pritožnica se je udeležila tečaja za medicinske sestre v Belgiji.
Assedic refused to pay her the unemployment benefits, because her training centre was not located in France.
Assedic ji nato ni želel plačati nadomestila, ker ta center usposabljanja ni v Franciji.
After contacting the complainant to obtain her consent, the European Ombudsman transferred the case to the French Ombudsman.
Potem ko je Evropski varuh človekovih pravic vzpostavil stik s pritožnico, da bi pridobil njeno soglasje, je primer posredoval francoskemu varuhu človekovih pravic.
The French Ombudsman subsequently informed the European Ombudsman that a solution to the complaint had been found.
Francoski varuh je pozneje obvestil Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, da je bila zadeva rešena.
NON-RECOGNITION OF MARRIAGE
NEPRIZNAVANJE POROKE
A Latvian citizen complained that the Irish authorities refused to recognise the validity of her marriage, which took place in Ireland using the Russian orthodox rites and that they were threatening to deport her husband, a citizen of Ukraine.
Latvijska državljanska se je pritožila, da irske oblasti ne želijo priznati njene poroke na Irskem, ki so jo priredili po ruskem pravoslavnem običaju, in da grozijo z izgonom njenega moža, ukrajinskega državljana.
The European Ombudsman transferred the complaint to the Irish Ombudsman and informed the complainant accordingly.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je pritožbo posredoval irskemu varuhu človekovih pravic in o tem obvestil pritožnico.
The Irish Ombudsman subsequently informed the European Ombudsman that the Irish Civil Marriage had been performed in the meantime and that the case was being dealt with by the Irish High Court.
Irski varuh je zatem Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic obvestil, da je imel par v vmesnem času irsko civilno poroko in da se s primerom ukvarja irsko višje sodišče.
THE OMBUDSMAN’SPROCEDURES
POSTOPKI VARUHA JLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
All complaints sent to the Ombudsman are registered and acknowledged, normally within one week of receipt.
Vse pritožbe, ki jih prejme Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic, se vpišejo v register in potrd`o obiÏajno v enem tednu po prejemu.
The lemer of acknowledgement informs the complainant of the procedure and includes the name and telephone number of the person who is dealing with the complaint.
V potrdilnem pismu se obvesti pritožnika o postopku in navede ime ter telefonsko številko osebe, ki obravnava pritožbo.
The complaint is analysed to determine whether an inquiry should be opened and the complainant is informed of the result of the analysis, normally within one month.
Da bi ugotovili, ali je treba sprožiti preiskavo, se pritožba analizira, pritožnik pa je ponavadi v enem mesecu obvešÏen o izidu analize.
If no inquiry is opened, the complainant is informed of the reason.
Je se preiskave ne sproži, je pritožnik obvešÏen o razlogih.
Whenever possible, the complaint is transferred or the complainant is given appropriate advice about a competent body to which he or she could turn.
Kadar je mogoÏe, je pritožba posredovana naprej ali se pritožniku ustrezno svetuje, na kateri organ se lahko obrne.
Starting an inquiry
Sprožitev preiskave
The first step in an inquiry is to forward the complaint to the institution or body concerned and request it to send an opinion to the Ombudsman, normally within three calendar months.
Prvi korak preiskave je posredovanje pritožbe zadevni instituc` i ali organu, ki se ga prosi, naj varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic pošlje mnenje, ponavadi v roku treh mesecev.