natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I am ever mindful of the fact that the Ombudsman has not only a legal but also a moral obligation to serve the citizen and, in so doing, to contribute to the enhancement of the quality of democracy in the evolving European Union.
Ves čas pa se zavedam dejstva, da Varuh nima le pravne, ampak tudi moralno dolžnost, da služi državljanom in s tem prispeva k povečanju kakovosti demokracije v nastajajoči Evropski unij i.
The most important task of the European Ombudsman is to deal with maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
Najpomembnejša naloga Evropskega varuha je, da se ukvarja z nepravilnostmi v dejavnostih institucij in organov Skupnosti, z izjemo Evropskega sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje pri opravljanju njune sodne funkcije.
Possible instances of maladministration come to the a ention of the Ombudsman mainly through complaints made by European citizens.
O možnih primerih nepravilnosti Varuh ponavadi izve iz pritožb evropskih državljanov.
The Ombudsman also has the possibility to conduct inquiries on his own initiative.
Varuh ima tudi možnost preiskav na lastno pobudo.
Any European citizen, or any non-citizen living in a Member State, can make a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Varuhu se lahko pritoži vsak evropski državljan ali vsak nedržavljan, ki živi v državi članici.
Businesses, associations or other bodies with a registered offi ce in the Union may also complain.
Pritožijo se lahko tudi podjetja, združenja in drugi organi, ki so registrirani v Unij i.
Complaints may be made to the Ombudsman either directly, or through a Member of the European Parliament.
Pritožijo se lahko neposredno Varuhu ali preko poslanca Evropskega parlamenta.
The Ombudsman seeks to ensure that everyone who might have reason to complain receives information about their right to do so and how to exercise that right.
Varuh se po svojih močeh trudi zagotoviti, da vsak, ki bi lahko imel razlog za pritožbo, dobi informacij o o tej pravici in kako to pravico izkoristiti.
As well as the Ombudsman’s own targeted information campaign, the cooperation of the institutions and bodies themselves is of great importance in achieving this objective.
Za doseganje tega cilja ima tako kot varuhova usmerjena kampanja obveščanja velik pomen tudi sodelovanje institucij in organov samih.
The European Commission systematically informs candidates in recruitment competitions, applicants for public access to documents and people who turn to it as guardian of the Treaties about their right to complain to the European Ombudsman.
Evropska komisij a o pravici do pritožbe Varuhu sistematično obvešča kandidate v izbirnem postopku zaposlovanja, prosilce za javni dostop do dokumentov in posameznike, ki se nanjo obračajo v njeni vlogi varuhinje Pogodb.
In a le er sent to the Vice-President of the European Commission, Mrs Loyola de PALACIO on 27 May 2003, the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission could consider also providing such information to applicants for, and recipients of, grants and subsidies.
V pismu podpredsednici Evropske komisije, ge. Loyoli de PALACIO, 27. maja 2003 je Varuh predlagal, da bi Komisij a lahko razmislila tudi o razširitvi obveščanja na kandidate za podpore in subvencije ter njihove prejemnike.
By le er of 27 October 2003, Mrs de PALACIO informed the Ombudsman that the Commission had decided to take action to apply the Ombudsman’s proposal, beginning with the specific grants and subsidies covered by a recent Communication from the Commission.2
V pismu 27. oktobra 2003 je ga. de PALACIO obvestila Varuha, da se je Komisij a odločila ukrepati po predlogu Varuha in to najprej s posebnimi podporami in subvencijami, ki so predmet nedavnega sporočila Komisije.2 e.2
Complaints to the Ombudsman are dealt with in a public way unless the complainant requests confidentiality.
Pritožbe Varuhu se obravnavajo javno, razen če pritožnik zahteva zaupnost.
It is important that the Ombudsman should act in as open a way as possible, so that European citizens can follow and understand his work and to set a good example to others.
Pomembno je, da Varuh deluje čim bolj javno, saj lahko tako evropski državljani sledijo in razumejo njegovo delo, s primeri pa daje zgled drugim.
During 2003, the Ombudsman dealt with 2611 cases. Of these, 2436 were new complaints received in 2003.
V letu 2003 je Varuh obravnaval 2611 primerov, od tega jih je leta 2003 na novo prispelo 2436.
Complaints were sent directly by individual citizens in 2268 cases and 168 complaints came from associations or companies.
2268 pritožb je prispelo neposredno od posameznih državljanov, 168 pritožb pa od združenj in podjetij .
The number of complaints brought forward from the year 2002 was 170.
Iz leta 2002 je bilo prenešenih 170 pritožb.
The Ombudsman also began fi ve owninitiative inquiries.
Varuh je začel tudi pet preiskav na lastno pobudo.
As noted in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 1995, there is an agreement between the Commi ee on Petitions of the European Parliament and the Ombudsman concerning the mutual transfer of complaints and petitions in appropriate cases.
Kot je navedeno v letnem poročilu Varuha za leto 1995, obstaja dogovor med odborom za peticij e Evropskega parlamenta in Varuhom o medsebojnem prenosu pritožb in peticij , kadar je to primerno.
During 2003, six complaints were transferred, with the consent of the complainant, to the European Parliament to be dealt with as petitions.
Leta 2003 je bilo s soglasjem pritožnika Evropskemu parlamentu prenesenih šest pritožb, ki naj bi se obravnavale kot peticije.
In 143 cases the Ombudsman advised a complainant to petition the European Parliament.
V 143 primerih je Varuh svetoval pritožniku, naj naslovi peticij o na Evropski parlament. (Glej prilogo A, Statistika)
THELEGAL BASIS OF THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK
PRAVNAPODLAGA ZA DELO VARUHA
The Ombudsman’s work is carried out in accordance with Article 195 of the Treaty establishing the
Delo Varuha poteka v skladu s členom 195 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, s Statutom
European Community, the Statute of the Ombudsman3 and the implementing provisions adopted by the Ombudsman under Article 14 of the Statute.
Varuha3in izvedbenimi predpisi, ki jih je Varuh sprejel na podlagi člena 14 svojega Statuta. Izvedbeni predpisi in Statut Varuha so objavljeni na spletni strani Varuha (h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int) v vseh uradnih jezikih.
The implementing provisions and the Statute of
Besedila so na voljo tudi v tiskani obliki v uradu Varuha.
Communication relating to a proposal for basic acts for grants currently covered by the Commission’s administrative autonomy or institutional prerogatives (COM (2003)274 final). final).
Sporočilo se nanaša na predlog o temeljnih aktih za dotacije, ki trenutno spadajo pod upravno avtonomijo ali institucionalne posebne pravice Komisij e (COM (2003)274 končno).
European Parliament decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, OJ 1994, L 113/15.
Odločitev Evropskega parlamenta 94/262 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog Varuha, UL 1994, L 113/15.
The implementing provisions deal with the internal operation of the Ombudsman’s offi ce.
Izvedbeni predpisi obravnavajo notranje delovanje urada Varuha.
However, in order that they should form a document that will be understandable by and useful to citizens, they also include certain material relating to other institutions and bodies that is already contained in the Statute of the Ombudsman.
Toda, da bi bili ti dokumenti razumljivi in uporabni za vse državljane, pa vsebujejo določene vsebine tudi o drugih institucijah in organih, ki so navedeni že v Statutu Varuha.
In the light of experience in the operation of the Ombudsman’s office, the Ombudsman adopted new implementing provisions on 8 July 2002, which came into effect on 1 January 2003.
V luči izkušenj o delovanju varuhovega urada, je Varuh 8. julij a 2002 sprejel nove izvedbene predpise, ki so stopili v veljavo 1. januarja 2003.
The new implementing provisions are available in all official languages on the Ombudsman’s website.
Novi izvedbeni predpisi so na voljo v vseh uradnih jezikih na spletni strani Varuha.
The relevant announcement was published in the Official Journal on 19 October 2002 (OJ C 252/24).
Ustrezna napoved je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu 19. oktobra 2002 (UL C 252/24).
THE MANDATE OF THEEUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
PRISTOJNOSTIEVROPSKEGA VARUHA
All complaints sent to the Ombudsman are registered and acknowledged.
Vse pritožbe poslane Varuhu, so vpisane v evidenco in potrjene.
The le er of acknowledgement informs the complainant of the procedure for considering his or her complaint and includes the name and telephone number of the legal officer who is dealing with it.
Potrdilo o prejemu obvešča pritožnika o postopku obravnavanja pritožbe in vključuje ime in telefonsko številko odgovornega pravnega strokovnega sodelavca.
The next step is to examine whether the complaint is within the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Naslednji korak preverja, če je pritožba v pristojnosti Varuha.
The mandate of the Ombudsman, established by Article 195 of the EC Treaty, empowers him to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered offi ce in a Member State, concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
Pristojnosti Varuha, določene s členom 195 Pogodbe ES, ga pooblaščajo za sprejemanje pritožb državljanov Unije, fizičnih ali pravnih oseb s prebivališčem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni izmed držav članic zaradi nepravilnosti pri dejavnostih institucij in organov Skupnosti, razen Evropskega sodišča in Sodišča prve stopnje pri opravljanju njune sodne funkcije.
A complaint is therefore outside the mandate if:
Pritožba je zunaj pristojnosti, če:
1 the complainant is not a person entitled to make a complaint (but see also 2.8.4 below)
1 pritožnik ni oseba, ki je upravičena do pritožbe (vendar glej tudi 2.8.4 spodaj),
2 the complaint is not against a Community institution or body
2 pritožba ni zoper institucij o ali organ Skupnosti,
3 it is against the Court of Justice or the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role or
3 je vložena zoper Evropsko sodišče ali Sodišče prve stopnje pri opravljanju njune sodne funkcije ali
4 it does not concern a possible instance of maladministration.
4 ne zatrjuje nepravilnosti.
Example of a complaint that was outside the mandate
Primer pritobe, ki ni bila v okviru pristojnosti
DEATH OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN SPANISH WATERS
SMRT NEZAKONITEGA PRISELJENCA V ŠPANSKIH VODAH
The European Ombudsman received a large number of complaints from citizens about the death of immigrants who were being illegally transported from the North African coast to the South of Spain.
Evropski varuh je prejel veliko število pritožb s strani državljanov o smrti priseljencev, ki so bili nezakonito prepeljani s severnoafriške obale na jug Španije.
The complainants mainly referred to the responsibility of the Spanish and Moroccan governments for the deaths resulting from this illegal immigration.
Pritožbe so se večinoma nanašale na odgovornost španske in maroške vlade za smrti, ki so bile posledica nezakonitega priseljevanja.
They suggested that these authorities and, by extension, the European Union, should address the problem of illegal immigration and adopt the appropriate measures.
Predlagale so, da se te oblasti in širše Evropska unija lotijo problema nezakonitega priseljevanja in sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe.
The European Ombudsman investigates complaints about maladministration by the institutions and bodies of the European Community.
Evropski varuh preiskuje pritožbe o nepravilnostih institucij in organov Evropske skupnosti.
He cannot deal with complaints concerning national, regional or local administrations of the Member States.
Ne more pa obravnavati pritožb, ki se tičejo nacionalnih, regionalnih ali lokalnih uprav držav članic.
Complaints concerning the need for, or merits of, Community legislation also fall beyond the scope of his competence.
Pritožbe o potrebi ali koristih zakonodaje Skupnosti prav tako ne sodijo v okvir njegovih pristojnosti.
The European Ombudsman therefore advised the complainants to turn to the Spanish national ombudsman insofar as the activities of the Spanish administration are concerned.
Evropski varuh je zato pritožnikom svetoval, da se v delu, ki se tiče dejavnosti španske uprave, obrnejo na španskega nacionalnega Varuha.
As regards the complainantsʼ suggestion that the European Union should take a stance, they were advised to petition the European Parliament, which has both investigatory and legislative powers that could be used in relation to this matter.
Kar se tiče predloga pritožnikov o opredelitvi Evropske unije, jim je predlagal, da naslovijo peticijo na Evropski parlament, ki ima tako preiskovalno kot zakonodajno pristojnost, ki se jo lahko v zvezi s tem izkoristi.
“Maladministration”
“Nepravilnost”
In response to a call from the European Parliament for a clear definition of maladministration, the Ombudsman offered the following definition in the Annual Report for 1997:
V odgovoru Evropskemu parlamentu na prošnjo za jasno opredelitev nepravilnosti je Varuh v poročilu za leto 1997 predlagal naslednjo opredelitev:
Maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it.
Nepravilnost se pojavi, ko javni organ ne deluje v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki je zanj zavezujoče.
In 1998, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming this definition. nition.
Leta 1998 je Evropski parlament sprejel resolucijo, ki je pozdravila to opredelitev.
The Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
Kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev
The origins of the Code
PRITOŽBEEVROPSKEMU
In November 1998, the Ombudsman began an own initiative inquiry into the existence and the public accessibility, for the different Community institutions and bodies, of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for officials in their relations with the public.
Novembra 1998 je Varuh v različnih institucijah in organih Skupnosti začel preiskavo na lastno pobudo o obstoju in javni dostopnosti kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev v odnosih z javnostjo.
The owninitiative inquiry asked nineteen Community institutions and bodies whether they had already adopted, or would agree to adopt, such a Code for their officials in their relations with the public.
Preiskava na lastno pobudo je devetnajst institucij in organov Skupnosti povprašala, če so že sprejeli ali če bi se strinjali s sprejetjem takega kodeksa za svoje uradnike v odnosih z javnostjo.
On 28 July 1999, the Ombudsman proposed a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in the form of dra recommendations to the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council.
28. julij a 1999 je Varuh kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev v obliki osnutka priporočila predlagal Komisij i, Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu.
Similar dra recommendations were made to the other institutions and bodies in September 1999.
Podobne osnutke priporočil je ostalim institucij am in organom predlagal septembra 1999.
The right to good administration in the Charter of Fundamental Rights
Pravica do dobrega upravljanja v Listini Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah
On 2 February 2000, at a public hearing organised by the Convention responsible for draing the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Ombudsman called for the Charter to include the right to good administration as a fundamental right.
2. februarja 2000 je Evropski varuh pozval na javnem zaslišanju, ki ga je pripravila Konvencij a, odgovorna za pripravo Listine Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah, naj listina vključi pravico do dobrega upravljanja kot temeljno pravico.
On 7 December 2000, the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at the meeting of the European Council in Nice.
7. decembra 2000 so predsedniki Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisij e na srečanju Evropskega sveta v Nici razglasili Listino Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah.
The Charter includes the right to good administration as Article 41.
Listina v členu 41 vključuje pravico do dobrega upravljanja.
Towards a European administrative law
Na poti k evropskemu upravnemu pravu
On 6 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted a resolution approving a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which European Union institutions and bodies, their administrations and their officials should respect in their relations with the public.
6. septembra 2001 je Evropski parlament sprejel resolucijo, ki potrjuje kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, ki naj bi ga institucij e in organi Evropske unije, njihove uprave in uradniki v svojih odnosih z javnostjo spoštovali.
The Parliament’s resolution on the Code is based on the Ombudsman’s Code of 28 July 1999, with some changes introduced by Mr Roy PERRY as rapporteur for the Commi ee on Petitions of the European Parliament.
Resolucij a Parlamenta o kodeksu temelji na kodeksu Varuha z dne 28. julij a 1999, vsebuje pa nekaj sprememb, ki jih je predstavil g. Roy PERRY kot poročevalec odbora za peticij e Evropskega parlamenta.
At the same time as approving the Code, the European Parliament also adopted a resolution calling on the European Ombudsman to apply it in examining whether there is maladministration, so as to give effect to the citizens’ right to good administration in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Istočasno s sprejetjem kodeksa je Evropski parlament sprejel resolucijo, s katero je pozval Evropskega varuha naj kodeks uveljavi, ko preverja ali obstajajo nepravilnosti, tako da bi uresničili pravico državljanov do dobrega upravljanja iz člena 41 Listine Evropske unij e o temeljnih pravicah.
The Ombudsman therefore applies the definition of maladministration so as to take into account the rules and principles contained in the Code.
Varuh zato uporablja opredelitev nepravilnosti tako, da upošteva pravila in načela, zbrana v kodeksu.
Following a suggestion originally made by Jean-Maurice DEHOUSSE, rapporteur for the Commi ee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, the European Parliament’s Resolution of 6 September 2001 on the Code also called on the European Commission to submit a proposal for a Regulation containing the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, to be based on Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
V skladu s prvotnim predlogom poročevalca odbora za pravne zadeve in notranji trg Jean-Mauricea DEHOUSSEA je resolucij a o kodeksu Evropskega parlamenta z dne 6. septembra 2001 tudi pozvala Evropsko komisijo, naj sprejme predlog uredbe, ki bi vključeval kodeks dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev in bi temeljil na členu 308 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
In a le er addressed to President PRODI on 24 November 2003, the European Ombudsman proposed that preparatory work should start immediately, to ensure that the future law can be adopted as rapidly as possible following the entry into force of the Constitution.
V pismu predsedniku PRODIJU 24. novembra 2003 je Evropski varuh predlagal, naj se takoj začnejo priprave za zagotovitev čim hitrejšega sprejetja prihodnjega zakona, ki bo sledil začetku veljavnosti Ustave.
A complaint that is within the mandate of the Ombudsman must meet further criteria of admissibility before the Ombudsman can open an inquiry.
Pritožba, ki spada v pristojnost Varuha, mora biti v skladu z nadaljnjimi merili dopustnosti, preden lahko Varuh začne preiskavo.
The criteria as set out by the Statute of the Ombudsman are that:
Merila, ki jih določa Statut Varuha, so:
1 the author and the object of the complaint must be identified (Art. 2.3 of the Statute)
1 pritožnik in predmet pritožbe morata biti razvidna (člen 2.3 statuta)
3 the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the a ention of the complainant (Art. 2.4)
3 pritožba mora biti vložena v roku dveh let od dne, ko se je pritožnik seznanil z dejstvi, na katerih pritožba temelji (člen 2.4)
4 the complaint must have been preceded by appropriate administrative approaches to the institution or body concerned (Art. 2.4)
4 pritožnik je pred tem moral izkoristiti vse ustrezne administrativne pristope pri zadevnih institucijah in organih (člen 2.4)
5 in the case of complaints concerning work relationships between the institutions and bodies and their officials and servants, the possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaints must have been exhausted before lodging the complaint (Art. 2.8).
5 da so v primeru pritožbe, ki se tiče delovnih razmerij med institucijami in organi ter njihovimi uradniki ali drugimi uslužbenci, bile pred tem izkoriščene že vse možnosti za vlaganje internih vlog in pritožb (člen 2.8)
Example of a complaint that was not preceded by appropriate administrative approaches
Primer pritobe, kjer niso bili izvedeni ustrezni administrativni pristopi
A UK citizen complained against the European Parliament because he could not find out from Parliamentʼs website the name and contact details of the MEP who represents him.
Državljan Velike Britanije se je pritožil zoper Evropski parlament, ker na spletni strani Parlamenta ni mogel najti imena in kontaktnih podatkov poslanca EP, ki ga je predstavljal.
The Ombudsmanʼs offi ce immediately sent the complainant by email a link to the page on the website of the European Parliamentʼs UK offi ce containing the relevant information about UK MEPs.
Urad Varuha je pritožniku takoj po e-pošti poslal povezavo s stranjo na spletu urada Evropskega parlamenta v VB, ki je vsebovala ustrezne podatke o poslancih EP iz VB.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsmanʼs offi ce for this information and stated that he would be happy to withdraw his complaint if the search engine on the EP website brought up this type of information.
Pritožnik se je uradu Varuha zahvalil za ta podatek in izjavil, da bi z veseljem umaknil svojo pritožbo, če bi iskalnik na spletni strani EP našel to vrsto podatkov.
The Ombudsman considered that it would be appropriate for the complainant to put his concerns directly to the EPʼs webmaster.
Varuh je menil, da bi bilo primerno, da pritožnik to zadevo naslovi neposredno na skrbnika spletnih strani EP.
The complainant was informed accordingly.
Pritožnik je o tem bil obveščen.
GROUNDS FOR INQUIRIES
Primer, kjer ni bilo podlage za preiskavo
Article 195 of the EC Treaty provides for him to “conduct inquiries for which he fi finds grounds”.
Pritožnika sta bila nemški par, ki sta po hudi nesreči ostala invalida.
In some cases, there may not be sufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to begin an inquiry, although the complaint is admissible.
Menila sta, da ju je zavarovalnica krivično obravnavala, in trdila, da sta upravičena do nadaljnjega zdravljenja.
The complainants were a German couple who were left handicapped by a serious accident.
Odbor za peticije Evropskega parlamenta, pri katerem sta prav tako iskala pomoč, ju je obvestil, da ni pristojen za njuno peticijo, saj ni bila povezana z EU.
They considered that they had been unfairly treated by the social security insurance and claimed that they were entitled to further treatment.
Pritožnika sta se obrnila tudi na Komisijo, ki ju je v dveh pismih obvestila, da ne more pomagati.
The complainants also addressed the Commission, which informed them in two letters that it was not in a position to help.
Njuna pritožba evropskemu Varuhu je spodbijala odločitev odbora za peticije Evropskega parlamenta in odgovore s strani Komisije.