natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.1 The Ombudsman invited the Commission to indicate whether it has any plans to provide a non-judicial remedy that tenderers could use, if they so wish, as an alternative to judicial recourse.
3.1 Evropski varuh je Komisij o zaprosil za pojasnilo, ali namerava uvesti možnost uporabe izvensodnih sredstev, ki bi jo lahko ponudniki izkoristili po lastni želji kot alternativo sodnemu postopku.
3.2 The Commission replied that it has not considered it necessary to provide a non-judicial remedy to tenderers, because amongst other reasons, the procedure laid down in its Communication of 3 July 2003 will allow tenderers to seek an effective judicial remedy against the contracting authority’s award decision.
3.2 Komisij a je odgovorila, da se ji ne zdi nujno uvesti možnost uporabe izvensodnih sredstev, ki bi jo ponudniki lahko izkoristili, med drugim zaradi tega, ker bo postopek iz Sporočila z dne 3. julij a 2003 omogočil ponudnikom uporabo učinkovitih sodnih sredstev proti sklepu naročnika o oddaji naročila.
3.3 The Ombudsman notes that the relevant judgement of the Court of Justice requires “a procedure whereby an applicant may have [an award] decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met.”
3.3 Evropski varuh je ugotovil, da zadevna sodba Sodišča zahteva “postopek, s katerim lahko vlagatelj razveljavi sklep (o oddaji naročila), če so izpolnjeni ustrezni pogoji.”
The Ombudsman recalls the finding in paragraph 2.3 above that the procedure described in the Commission’s Communication appears to provide unsuccessful tenderers and candidates with the opportunity to bring judicial proceedings to challenge an award decision and to have that decision set aside before the relevant contract is signed.
Varuh opozarja na ugotovitev iz odstavka 2.3 zgoraj, in sicer da postopek, opisan v Sporočilu Komisije, omogoča neuspešnim ponudnikom in kandidatom možnost uporabe sodnih postopkov proti sklepu o oddaji naročila in razveljavitev tega sklepa pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe.
The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission is not obliged also to establish a non-judicial remedy and therefore finds no maladministration in the Commission’s decision not to do so.
Prav tako meni, da Komisij a ni dolžna uvesti možnost uporabe izvensodnih sredstev, zato pri tem ne ugotavlja nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komisije. e.
The Commission’s code is annexed to its rules of procedure: 2000 OJ L 308/26.
Kodeks Komisij e je priložen njenemu Poslovniku: 2000 UL L 308/26.
It is also available online at h p://www.europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/code/index_en.htm.
Prav tako je dostopen na spletnem naslovu h p://www.europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/code/index_en.htm.
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, 2002 OJ L 248/1.
Uredba Sveta (ES/Euratom) št. 1605/2002 z dne 25. junij a 2002 o Finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za skupni proračun Evropskih skupnosti, 2002 UL L 248/1.
Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, 2002 OJ L 357/1.
Uredba Komisij e (ES, Euratom) št. 2342/2002 z dne 23. decembra 2002, ki določa podrobna pravila za izvajanje Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) št. 1605/2002 o Finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za skupni proračun Evropskih skupnosti, 2002 UL L 357/1.
FURTHER REMARK
DODATNA OPOMBA
The Ombudsman notes that the Commission’s Communication does not expressly provide that unsuccessful tenderers and candidates shall be informed of the possibility to bring judicial proceedings to challenge an award decision and to have that decision set aside before the relevant contract is signed.
Evropski varuh je ugotovil, da v Sporočilu Komisij e ni izrecno določeno, da bodo neuspešni ponudniki in kandidati obveščeni o možnosti uporabe sodnih postopkov proti sklepu o oddaji naročila in razveljavitvi tega sklepa pred podpisom pogodbe.
The Ombudsman points out that, according to the Commission’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their Relations with the Public, decisions should, where appropriate, refer to the possibility of starting judicial proceedings in accordance with Article 230 EC.
Obenem poudarja, da bi morali sklepi v skladu s kodeksom dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev Evropske komisij e po potrebi opozoriti na možnost sprožitve sodnega postopka v skladu s členom 230 Pogodbe ES.
The Ombudsman considers that it would be in conformity with the principles of good administration to provide such information to unsuccessful tenderers and candidates.
Varuh meni, da bi bilo obvestilo neuspešnim ponudnikom in kandidatom glede tovrstne informacij e v skladu z načeli dobrega upravljanja.
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION IN A RECRUITMENT COMPETITION – COMPLAINANT FROM ACCESSION STATE
ELEKTRONSKA PRIJAVA V POSTOPKU JAVNEGA RAZPISA ZA ZAPOSLITEV - PRITOŽNIK IZ DRŽAVE PRISTOPNICE
Decision in owninitiative inquiry OI/4/2003/ADB concerning the European Personnel Selection Offi ce
Sklep preiskave na lastno pobudo OI/4/2003/ADB o Evropskem uradu za izbor osebja (European Personnel Selection Office - EPSO)
The reasons for the inquiry
Razlogi za preiskavo
On 2 November 2003, the complainant, a national from an accession country, contacted the European Ombudsman and complained about the circumstances of the registration for open competition EPSO/A/XX/03 organised by the European Personnel Selection Offi ce (EPSO) to constitute a reserve of assistant administrators.
Pritožnik, državljan države pristopnice, je 2. novembra 2003 vzpostavil stik z Evropskim varuhom in se pritožil glede okoliščin pri prijavi na javni razpis za zaposlitev EPSO/A/XX/03, ki ga je razpisal EPSO z namenom sestave rezervnega seznama pomožnih uradnikov.
The only way to get registered for this competition was through the internet.
Edini način prijave na ta razpis je bil preko interneta.
The closing date for registration was 24 June 2003 “at 12.00 Brussels time”.
Zadnji rok za prijavo je bil 24. junij 2003 “ob 12.00 uri po bruseljskem času”.
The complainant allegedly tried to perform the electronic registration on 24 June 2003.
Pritožnik je 24. junij a 2003 ob 11.34 poslal na EPSO elektronsko pošto.
However, technical problems with EPSO’s server prevented him from ge ing registered.
Po njegovih trditvah mu je EPSO odgovoril ob 12.41, in sicer da njegove prijave preko elektronske pošte ni mogoče upoštevati in da ima EPSO težave s svojim strežnikom.
On 24 June 2003, at 11.34 am, the complainant therefore contacted EPSO’s services by e-mail.
Pritožnik ni bil zadovoljen s tem odgovorom, zato se je še enkrat obrnil na EPSO, ki je potrdil prejšnji odgovor.
According to the complainant, EPSO replied on 12.41 pm, stating that email registration could not be taken into account, and that EPSO was experiencing difficulties with its server.
EPSO je poudaril, da so kandidati imeli dovolj časa za prijavo in da so jim prav zaradi možnosti tehničnih težav izrecno svetovali, naj s prijavo ne čakajo do zadnjih dni pred iztekom roka za prijavo.
EPSO informed the complainant that these difficulties should soon be fixed and advised the complainant to “try again before the 12.00”.
Pritožnik je nato vložil pritožbo pri Evropskem varuhu.
The complainant was dissatisfied with this reply and therefore contacted EPSO again.
Pritožnik je trdil, da EPSO za razpis EPSO/A/XX/03 ni omogočil kandidatom obvezne elektronske prijave do roka, ki je bil določen v objavljenem razpisu.
EPSO confirmed its previous answer.
Pritožnik je menil, da bi zaradi tehničnih težav EPSO moral upoštevati njegovo elektronsko pošto kot prijavo. avo.
It in particular underlined that applicants had had enough time to get registered and, in view of possible technical difficulties, had been expressly instructed not to wait until the last few days before the closing date.
Pritožnik ni sodil v nobeno izmed teh kategorij , zato ga je Evropski varuh obvestil, da njegove pritožbe ne more obravnavati.
The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.
Zato se je odločil, da v zvezi z zadevo začne preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
EPSO’s opinion
Mnenje urada EPSO
The opinion of EPSO on the complaint was sent on 4 December 2003.
EPSO je mnenje o pritožbi poslal 4. decembra 2003. Direktor urada EPSO je obvestil Evropskega varuha, da so primer preučili in da je bil pritožnik povabljen na predizbirne teste, načrtovane za 11. in 12. december 2003.
On 10 December 2003, the Ombudsman’s services contacted the complainant by telephone.
Urad Evropskega varuha je 10. decembra 2003 poklical pritožnika po telefonu. Pritožnik se je zahvalil varuhu za njegovo prizadevanje in menil, da je EPSO uredil zadevo v skladu z njegovimi pričakovanji.
1 On 27 November 2003, the European Ombudsman started an own initiative inquiry into EPSO’s dealing with the registration of a candidate who had unsuccessfully tried to use the compulsory electronic registration procedure in view of his participation in an open competition for nationals of accession countries.
1 Evropski varuh je 27. novembra 2003 začel preiskavo na lastno pobudo o ravnanju urada EPSO glede prijave kandidata, ki je neuspešno skušal uporabiti postopek obvezne elektronske prijave, da bi tako lahko sodeloval na javnem razpisu za državljane iz držav pristopnic.
According to the candidate, he could not get registered before the closing date for registration due to technical problems with EPSO’s server.
Kandidat je trdil, da se ni mogel prijaviti pred iztekom roka za prijavo zaradi tehničnih težav, ki jih je EPSO imel s svojim strežnikom.
The candidate’s participation in the competition was rejected despite the fact that, before the closing date, he had informed EPSO of the impossibility to perform the electronic registration and asked that his email registration should be taken into consideration instead.
Udeležba kandidata na razpisu je bila zavrnjena, kljub temu da je pred iztekom roka obvestil EPSO, da se elektronske prijave ne da izvesti. Obenem je zaprosil, da se namesto tega upošteva njegova prijava po elektronski pošti.
2 In its opinion, EPSO stated that further to the Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry, the candidate had been invited to participate in the open competition.
2 EPSO v svojem mnenju trdi, da so po preiskavi na lastno pobudo Evropskega varuha kandidata povabili, da sodeluje na javnem razpisu.
3 The candidate was contacted by telephone by the Ombudsman’s services.
3 Urad Evropskega varuha je kandidata poklical po telefonu. Kandidat je potrdil, da je EPSO ukrepal in uredil zadevo v skladu z njegovimi pričakovanji ter se je varuhu zahvalil za prizadevanje.
COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IN THE FIELD OF REHABILITATION OF PERSONS SUFFERING FROM MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS
ZAKONODAJA SKUPNOSTI NA PODROČJU REHABILITACIJE OSEB, KI TRPIJO ZA MULTIPLO SKLEROZO
The query related to a request for information that the regional Ombudsman received from Professor B., President of the Italian National Multiple Sclerosis Association.
Poizvedba se je nanašala na prošnjo za informacijo, ki jo je regionalni ombudsman prejel od profesorja B., predsednika Italijanske nacionalne zveze obolelih za multiplo sklerozo.
Professor B. would like to be informed about existing Community legislation in the field of rehabilitation of persons suffering from multiple sclerosis.
Profesor B. je želel izvedeti podatke o veljavnih predpisih Skupnosti s področja rehabilitacije obolelih za multiplo sklerozo.
The regional Ombudsman forwarded this request to the European Ombudsman.
Regionalni ombudsman je njegovo prošnjo posredoval Evropskemu varuhu.
On 23 July 2003, the European Ombudsman forwarded a copy of the query to the Commission and asked the la er to inform him on the existing Community legislation in this field. field.
Evropski varuh je 23. julij a 2003 posredoval kopij o prošnje Komisij i in jo zaprosil, da ga obvesti o veljavni zakonodaji Skupnosti s tega področja.
In its reply, the Commission states that, on the basis of Article 152 of the Treaty, the European Union has a mandate to ensure a high level of health protection by completing national policies aiming to improve public health by preventing human illness and diseases.
Komisij a je v svojem odgovoru izjavila, da ima na podlagi člena 152 Pogodbe Evropska unij a obveznost, da zagotovi visoko stopnjo zdravstvenega varstva s tem, da dopolnjuje nacionalne politike, namenjene izboljševanju javnega zdravja s preprečevanjem bolezni.
However, according to paragraph 5 of Article 152, the principal responsibility in regard to health care, including issues of rehabilitation, remains with the Member States.
Vendar pa v skladu s členom 152(5) nosijo glavno odgovornost glede zdravstvenega varstva, vključno z vprašanji rehabilitacije, države članice.
In view of this, there is no Community legislation in the field of rehabilitation of persons suffering from multiple sclerosis and there is no Community legislation in preparation in this field. field.
Zato ne obstaja in tudi ni načrtovana priprava zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju rehabilitacije obolelih za multiplo sklerozo.
The European Ombudsman forwarded the Commission’s reply to the regional Ombudsman with an invitation to make observations, if he so wished.
Evropski varuh je odgovor Komisij e posredoval regionalnemu ombudsmanu s povabilom, da priloži svoj komentar, če to želi.
During a telephone conversation on 17 October 2003, his services informed the European Ombudsman’s services that the regional Ombudsman had taken note of the Commission’s answer and extended his thanks to the European Ombudsman for his help in this ma er.
Urad regionalnega ombudsmana je med telefonskim pogovorom dne 17. oktobra 2003 obvestil urad Evropskega varuha, da je seznanjen z odgovorom Komisij e in se mu zahvaljuje za pomoč v tej zadevi.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Evropski varuh je s tem zaključil primer.
Decision
EVROPSKEUNIJE
Among the ma ers discussed were the Article 226 EC procedure, the situation of Ombudsmen in the Member States and applicant countries, as well as the cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Commi ee on Petitions.
Med drugim sta se pogovarjala o postopku iz člena 226 Pogodbe ES, položaju ombudsmanov v državah članicah in državah pristopnicah ter o sodelovanju med Evropskim varuhom in Odborom za peticije. e.
In his speech to the Commi ee, the Ombudsman welcomed the cooperation which all the institutions demonstrated in their relations with his offi ce.
V svojem govoru pred odborom je Evropski varuh pozdravil sodelovanje institucijz njegovim uradom. G.
Mr SÖDERMAN further gave an overview of his main successes for citizens and outlined the areas which, in his view, would require further actions or improvements.
SÖDERMAN je prav tako podal pregled svojih glavnih dosežkov v imenu državljanov, in omenil, na katerih področjih bi bili po njegovem mnenju potrebni nadaljnji ukrepi ali izboljšave.
On 25 March, the President of the European Parliament, Mr Pat COX, held a reception for the Ombudsman and his staff.
Predsednik Evropskega parlamenta, g. Pat COX, je 25. marca organiziral sprejem za Evropskega varuha in njegovo osebje.
The event was to mark Mr SÖDERMAN’s achievements in offi ce.
Povod za sprejem je bilo priznanje dosežkom g. SÖDERMANA pri opravljanju njegovega mandata.
Around thirty people a ended the event, including the Chairmen of the political groups and the Chairman and members of the Commi ee on Petitions.
Sprejema se je udeležilo okoli trideset ljudi, vključno s predsedniki političnih skupin, predsednikom Odbora za peticij e in njegovimi člani. G.
Members of the Petition’s Commi ee who a ended the dinner included, amongst others, Mr Roy PERRY, Vice-chairman of the Commi ee on Petitions and the Earl of STOCKTON, rapporteur for the Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2002.
Odnosi z drugimi institucij a mi Evropske unij e za Letno poročilo Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2002. G.
Mr SÖDERMAN was accompanied by Mr Joao SANT’ANNA.
SÖDERMANA je spremljal g. Joao SANT’ANNA.
All the Members of Parliament present thanked Mr SÖDERMAN for the high quality of his work as first European Ombudsman.
Vsi prisotni poslanci so se g. SÖDERMANU zahvalili za visoko kakovost njegovega dela kot prvega Evropskega varuha.
OTHERINSTITUTIONS
EVROPSKEUNIJE
In his speech to the Commi ee, the Ombudsman gave a positive assessment of the results achieved under his predecessor, highlighted the preparations for enlargement and the budgetary consequences thereof, and stressed the proactive role of the Ombudsman in reaching out to citizens in order to educate them about their rights and about how to exercise them.
V svojem govoru pred odborom je pozitivno ocenil dosežke svojega predhodnika, poudaril priprave na širitev in posledice širitve za proračun. Obenem je opozoril na dejavno vlogo Evropskega varuha pri stikih z državljani in seznanjanju slednjih z njihovimi pravicami in načini njihovega uveljavljanja.
The following Members then spoke: the Earl of STOCKTON, Rapporteur for the Ombudsman’s 2002 Report, Mr Rainer WIELAND, Mr Eurig WYN, Mr Roy PERRY, and Mr GEMELLI.
Nato so spregovorili naslednji poslanci: grof STOCKTONSKI, poročevalec za Letno poročilo Evropskega varuha za leto 2002, g. Rainer WIELAND, g. Eurig WYN, g. Roy PERRY in g. GEMELLI.
He met Mr Gregorio GARZON CLARIANA, Jurisconsult of the European Parliament, as well as senior members of the European Parliament’s legal service, including Mr Johann SCHOO and Mr Christian PENNERA.
Sledila je izmenjava stališč o skupnih vprašanjih, vključno glede sporazumov o sodelovanju med Evropskim varuhom in Evropskim parlamentom. G.
Mr DIAMANDOUROS was accompanied by Mr Ian HARDEN, Head of his legal department.
Ian HARDEN, vodja njegove pravne službe.
They discussed several issues, amongst which the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference (IGC).
Pogovarjala sta se o različnih vprašanjih, med drugim tudi o prihodnji medvladni konferenci (IGC).
A er the meeting, Mr DIAMANDOUROS had a working lunch with the Association of European Journalists, organised by the Dublin Information Offi ce in its premises.
Po srečanju je imel g. DIAMANDOUROS delovno kosilo s predstavniki Zveze evropskih novinarjev, ki jo je organiziral dublinski Informacijski urad v svojih prostorih. Sestanku je predsedoval g.
Present at this working lunch was also Mr Peter DOYLE, Head of the European Commission Representation in Ireland.
Na delovnem kosilu je bil navzoč tudi g. Peter DOYLE, vodja stalnega predstavništva Evropske komisij e na Irskem.
On 24 September, Mr DIAMANDOUROS was visited by Mr George KASSIMATIS, Head of the European Parliament Information Offi ce in Athens.
DIAMANDOUROSA obiskal g. George KASSIMATIS, vodja Informacijskega urada Evropskega parlamenta v Atenah.
They discussed several issues, including promotion of the European Ombudsman institution in Greece.
Pogovarjala sta se o različnih vprašanjih, med drugim o promociji institucij e Evropskega varuha v Grčiji. i.
On 25 September, Mr DIAMANDOUROS presented the Annual Report for 2002 of the European Ombudsman to the Plenary Session of the European Parliament.
DIAMANDOUROS je 25. septembra predstavil Letno poročilo Evropskega varuha za leto 2002 na plenarnem zasedanju Evropskega parlamenta. Zasedanju je predsedoval g.
Mr Ben HAGARD gave a demonstration of the Ombudsman’s website and Ms Rosita AGNEW outlined the Ombudsman’s communication strategy.
Ben HAGARD je predstavil spletno stran Evropskega varuha, medtem ko je ga. Rosita AGNEW orisala komunikacijsko strategijo.
Mr SÖDERMAN then answered questions about his work and his experience as the Union’s first Ombudsman.
SÖDERMAN je nato odgovarjal na vprašanja o svojem delu in izkušnjah v vlogi prvega Evropskega varuha.
The Commissioner responsible for relations with the European Ombudsman, Mrs Loyola DE PALACIO, explained the importance which the Commission a aches to the Ombudsman’s
Loyola DE PALACIO, komisarka, odgovorna za odnose z Evropskim varuhom, je pojasnila pomen, ki ga Komisij a pripisuje ugotovitvam in priporočilom Varuha, tako glede pritožb kot bolj splošnih vprašanj, ki jih Evropski varuh obravnava v preiskavah na lastno pobudo. Ga.
The main subjects of discussion were the mechanisms available to citizens who wish to complain about failure by Member States to enforce European environmental law, especially non-judicial remedies.
Glavni predmet razgovorov so bili mehanizmi, na razpolago državljanom, ki se želijo pritožiti proti državam članicam v zvezi z izvajanjem evropske okoljevarstvene zakonodaje, še zlasti izvensodna sredstva.
Mr REICHENBACH presented to Mr DIAMANDOUROS the progress being made with the Commission’s plan to reform the staff regulations for officials and other agents of the EU.
Horstom REICHENBACHOM, generalnim direktorjem za osebje in upravo. G. RECHENBACH je g.
Mr DIAMANDOUROS outlined his priorities for the work of the European Ombudsman: the maintenance and enhancement of the capacity of the Ombudsman’s Offi ce to help citizens, the promotion of the rule of law, good administration and respect for human rights, and the reaching out to all citizens to inform them of how to use their rights.
DIAMANDOUROS je orisal svoje prednostne naloge v vlogi Evropskega varuha: vzdrževanje in okrepitev zmogljivosti urada Evropskega varuha pri pomoči državljanom, spodbujanje pravne države, dobrega javnega upravljanja in spoštovanja človekovih pravic ter seznanjanje državljanov z njihovimi pravicami in načini njihove uveljavitve. G.
Mr DIAMANDOUROS also highlighted a number of issues of specific concern to infringement procedures, friendly solutions and EU administrative law.
DIAMANDOUROS je prav tako poudaril vprašanja posebnega pomena v zvezi s postopki za ugotavljanje kršitev, sporazumnimi rešitvami in upravnimi predpisi EU.
There followed a wideranging debate on these issues.
Sledila je razprava o teh vprašanjih. Po tem sestanku je g.
The European Convention was established following the Laeken European Council in December 2001, in order to pave the way for the next Intergovernmental Conference.
Evropska Konvencij a je bila ustanovljena po vrhu Evropskega Sveta v Laeknu decembra 2001 z namenom priprave naslednje medvladne konference.
The Convention’s task was to consider the key issues arising from the Laeken Declaration for the European Union’s future development and to identify various possible responses.
Naloga Konvencij e je bila obravnava ključnih vprašanj, ki so se pojavila v Deklaraciji iz Laekna glede prihodnjega razvoja Evropske unije, in ugotovitev različnih možnih rešitev.
The Convention brought together representatives from the governments and national parliaments of Member States and Candidate States, from the European Parliament and from the European Commission.
V Konvencij i so bili zbrani predstavniki vlad in nacionalnih parlamentov držav članic in držav kandidatk, Evropskega parlamenta in Evropske komisije.
As was also the case with the earlier Convention that dra ed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Ombudsman held the status of an Observer in the new Convention.
Kot v primeru prejšnje Konvencije, ki je pripravila Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, je imel Evropski varuh status opazovalca tudi v okviru nove Konvencije. e.
Mr DIAMANDOUROS participated in the Plenary Sessions of the Convention on 34 April, 24-25 April and 15-16 May.
DIAMANDOUROS se je udeležil plenarnih zasedanj Konvencij e 3.-4. aprila, 24.-25. aprila in 15.16. maja.
The Convention completed its work on 10 July 2003.
Konvencij a je zaključila svoje delo 10. julij a 2003.
The European Ombudsman’s speeches and proposals are available on his Website as well as on that of the Convention.
Govori in predlogi Evropskega varuha so na voljo na njegovi spletni strani in na spletni strani Konvencije. e.
THE COURT OFJUSTICE OF THEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES
SODIŠČE EVROPSKIH SKUPNOSTI
The President of the Court awarded the European Ombudsman the Court’s 50th Anniversary Medal with Mr SÖDERMAN’S name inscribed.
Predsednik Sodišča mu je podelil jubilejno medaljo, izdelano ob 50letnici Sodišča, z vgraviranim imenom g. SÖDERMANA. G. RODRÍGUEZ je nato izjavil, da je bila ustanovitev Evropskega varuha odlična ideja.