natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman did not, therefore, consider that the Commission had commimed a manifest error of evaluation in concluding, on the basis of the information contained in the proposal, that the consortium lacked a specialised foundation designer.
Zato varuh ni menil, da je Komis` a storila oÏitno napako, ko je na podlagi podatkov v predlogu ocenila, da konzorc` nima specializiranega projektanta.
As regards the complainant’s claim that the factual error should be corrected, the Ombudsman pointed out that he understood the Commission to argue that the project proposal lacked information about the Danish partner and not that the Commission contested the complainant’s statement that the partner was a specialist or a world leader in the relevant field.
Kar zadeva zahtevo pritožnika, da je treba napako popraviti, je Komis` a po varuhovi oceni trdila le, da v predlogu ni dovolj podatkov o danskem partnerju, ni pa izpodb`ala trditve pritožnika, da je danski partner specialist in vodilni na tem podroÏju v svetovnem merilu.
In view thereof and of the finding that the Commission had not commimed a manifest error of evaluation, the Ombudsman found no grounds to pursue the claim in question.
Ob upoštevanju slednjega in ob ugotovitvi, da Komis` a pri oceni ni storila oÏitne napake, varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni našel razlogov za nadaljnjo obravnavo.
APPLICATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CLAUSE IN THE CO-OPERATION AGREEMENT WITH VIETNAM
IZVAJANJE KLAVZULE O JLOVEKOVIH PRAVICAH V SPORAZUMU O SODELOVANJU Z VIETNAMOM
Summary of decision on complaint 933/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 933/2004/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
Article 1 (the “human rights clause”) of the 1996 cooperation agreement between the European Community and Vietnam provides that cooperation between the parties has to be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which should become an essential aspect of the agreement.
V Ïlenu 1 (klavzula o Ïlovekovih pravicah) sporazuma o sodelovanju med Evropsko skupnostjo in Vietnamom iz leta 1996 je zapisano, da mora biti medsebojno sodelovanje zasnovano na spoštovanju Ïlovekovih pravic in demokratiÏnih naÏel, kar mora postati tudi poglavitni vidik sporazuma.
The complainant alleged that, in the face of serious violations of human rights by the authorities of Vietnam, the Commission failed to use its powers to suspend the cooperation agreement.
Pritožnik je trdil, da Komis` a kljub hudim kršitvam Ïlovekovih pravic, za katere so odgovorne vietnamske oblasti, ni izkoristila svojih pristojnosti za zamrznitev sporazuma.
It argued that there had been no material breach of the agreement that should lead to its suspension.
Menila je tudi, da ni prišlo do bistvenih kršitev sporazuma, ki bi lahko vodile k njegovi zamrznitvi.
According to the Commission, such a response should only be used as a last resort, and in full consultation with Member States and the European Parliament.
Po njeni oceni bi bilo mogoÏe ukrep zamrznitve sprejeti le v skrajnem primeru, in to po temeljitem posvetovanju z državami Ïlanicami in Evropskim parlamentom.
The Ombudsman noted that, on the basis of the “human-rights clause”, respect for fundamental human rights constitutes an essential element of the agreement and thus a breach of that clause could lead to the agreement’s suspension.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je dejal, da je na podlagi „klavzule o Ïlovekovih pravicah” varovanje temeljnih Ïlovekovih pravic eden poglavitnih delov sporazuma, zato bi lahko kršitev te klavzule privedla do zamrznitve sporazuma.
He pointed out that this clause is binding on the Commission and that acts or omissions of the Commission in relation thereto could constitute instances of maladministration.
Poudaril je, da je klavzula za Komis` o zavezujoÏa in da bi njeno ukrepanje ali neukrepanje v zvezi z njo lahko pomenilo nepravilnost.
The Ombudsman considered, however, that the agreement did not specify the Commission’s obligations as regards the circumstances in which that provision should be invoked in order to
Varuh je navedel, da je Komis` a nekaj naÏel za uporabo klavzule o Ïlovekovih pravicah opredelila v sporoÏilu iz leta 1995, ki govori o vkljuÏitvi spoštovanja demokratiÏnih naÏel in Ïlovekovih pravic v sporazume med Skupnostjo in tretjimi državami.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY suspend the cooperation agreement.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had taken the view that the suspension of the agreement would deprive the EU of the possibility of using EU-funded cooperation programmes to support the reform process in Vietnam and that it had therefore decided to pursue dialogue with the Vietnamese authorities by means of d iT erent bodies set up under the cooperation agreement.
Varuh je še omenil mnenje Komis`e, da bi zamrznitev sporazuma onemogoÏila programe sodelovanja, ki jih EU financira za podporo procesa reform v Vietnamu, zato se je Komis` a odloÏila, da nadaljuje dialog z vietnamskimi oblastmi prek razliÏnih teles, ustanovljenih v okviru sporazuma o sodelovanju.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s reasoning for its decision not to trigger the suspension of the cooperation agreement, but instead to make use of measures that it considered to be more proportionate, in accordance with the criteria set out in its 1995 Communication, appeared to be reasonable.
Varuh je kot utemeljene ocenil razloge Komis` e za to, da ne sproži zamrznitve sporazuma, temveÏ sprejme bolj sorazmerne ukrepe v skladu z merili, navedenimi v sporoÏilu iz leta 1995.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission.
Zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri delovanju Komis` e.
CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF THE STRUCTURAL FUNDS
POSVETOVANJE O PRIHODNOSTI STRUKTURNIH SKLADOV
Summary of decision on complaint 948/2004/OV against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 948/2004/OV zoper Evropsko komis` o
In support of the allegation, the complainant referred to the Commission’s Communication entitled “Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue — General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission” (COM(2002) 704 final of the 11 December 2002), which sets out fi ve minimum standards for the consultation process.
Pritožnica je pritožbo oprla na sporoÏilo Komis`e, naslovljeno „Krepitev kulture posvetovanja in dialoga – splošna naÏela in minimalni standardi za posvetovanje Komis` e z zainteresiranimi strankami” (KOM(2002)0704), konÏna razliÏica z dne 11. decembra 2002), ki doloÏa pet najosnovnejših pravil za proces posvetovanja.
The complainant questioned whether the minimum standards are s u U ciently clear and also suggested that the Commission should adopt a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation, particularly when its proposals have an impact on a wide range of interests.
Pritožnik je podvomil, ali so najosnovnejša pravila dovolj jasna, in hkrati izrazil mnenje, da bi morala Komis` a pri posvetovanju ubrati celostni pristop, ki bi zajemal veÏ sektorjev, še posebej ko njeni predlogi vplivajo na vrsto razliÏnih podroÏ` .
It observed, however, that it would welcome more input from NGOs, which would require them to mobilise more eT ectively in the future.
Ob tem je dodala, da si želi boljšega odziva nevladnih organizac` , za kar bi se morale te v prihodnosti bolj potruditi.
The Ombudsman considered that the minimum standards are s u U ciently clear to make it possible for him to evaluate whether or not the Commission has complied with them.
Po mnenju varuha Ïlovekovih pravic so najosnovnejša pravila dovolj jasna, da je mogoÏe oceniti, ali jih je Komis` a upoštevala ali ne.
In the present case, the Ombudsman carried out a detailed review and considered that the Commission had complied with the fi ve announced minimum standards. No maladministration was therefore found.
V zadevnem primeru je opravil natanÏen pregled in ocenil, da je Komis` a omenjena pravila upoštevala, zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman did not, however, exclude the possibility either that the minimum standards could be expressed more clearly or that a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation could be appropriate in some cases.
Vendar pri tem ni izkljuÏil možnosti, da bi bila pravila lahko jasneje izražena in da bi bil v nekaterih primerih ustrezen bolj celosten pristop, ki bi zajel veÏ sektorjev.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the complainant has the possibility to make suggestions in this regard to the Commission and that it would be good administration for the Commission to give serious consideration to any such suggestions.
Varuh je poudaril, da lahko pritožnik svoje predloge posreduje Komis`i, ta pa jih mora v luÏi dobrega upravljanja resno preuÏiti.
THE EUROPEAN EMERGENCY CALL NUMBER 112
EVROPSKA ŠTEVILKA ZA KLIC V SILI 112
Summary of decision on complaint 1096/2004/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1096/2004/TN zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint was made by an association which alleged failures by the Commission in relation to the implementation of the European emergency call number 112.
Prav tako je menilo, da Komis` a na svojih spletnih straneh, namenjenih številki 112, ni objavila posodobljenih in ustreznih podatkov.
The association alleged that the Commission had failed to take further action regarding the civil protection component of 112, as consistently promised in its work programmes.
Komis` a je odgovorila, da je njena pristojna služba v zvezi s številko sofinancirala veÏ projektov civilne zašÏite v sklopu akc`skega programa Skupnosti in da pri vprašanju sodeluje z drugimi službami Komis` e ter usklajuje njihovo delo.
It also alleged that the Commission had failed to supply updated and relevant information concerning 112 on its website.
Navedla je še, da je v preteklosti res prihajalo do zamud pri posodabljanju spletnega mesta, vendar se to zdaj veÏ ne dogaja.
The Commission argued that the responsible service had co-financed a number of projects relevant to 112 within the framework of the Community Action Programme in the fi eld of civil protection and that it coordinates and co-operates with other Commission services in the context of 112.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je spomnil na pomen nudenja pomoÏi državljanom in obvešÏanja o njihovih pravicah ter dejal, da v tem pogledu razume prizadevanja združenja. Hkrati pa je poudaril, da ima Komis` a pri izvajanju svojih delovnih programov doloÏena pooblastila, za uveljavljanje katerih je odgovorna Parlamentu prek proraÏunskega postopka.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY also explained that although there had been delays in updating the website in the past, this was no longer the case.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
The Ombudsman also noted that the 112 website stated that it had been updated on 21 September 2004, which appeared to be substantially correct.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je še omenil, da je na spletnih straneh o številki 112 pisalo, da so bile nazadnje posodobljene 21. septembra 2004, kar je v glavnem držalo.
The links to obsolete legislation clearly referred to how 112 had been established and the website also contained an updated link to current legislation.
Povezave, ki so vodile do zastarele zakonodaje, so se oÏitno navezovale na zgodovino številke, vendar je bilo na spletnih straneh mogoÏe najti tudi posodobljene povezave, ki so vodile do obstojeÏe zakonodaje.
The Ombudsman further noted that DG Environment had published lists of grants awarded in 2003 on its website and that the deadline for publishing such lists for 2004, as set out in Regulation 2342/2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation, had not yet expired.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je nadalje pripomnil, da je generalni direktorat za okolje na svojem spletnem mestu objavil seznam prejemnikov podpore, dodeljene v letu 2003, in da rok za objavo takega seznama za leto 2004, kot je naveden v Uredbi št. 2342/2002 o natanÏnih pravilih za izvajanje fi na n Ï ne uredbe, še ni potekel.
On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman found no maladministration by the Commission.
Na osnovi navedenega varuh pri delovanju Komis` e ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
PHASING OUT OF LANGUAGE SECTIONS IN A EUROPEAN SCHOOL
ODPRAVLJANJE JEZIKOVNIH ODDLEKOV NA EVROPSKI ŠOLI
Summary of decision on complaint 1155/2004/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi št. 1155/2004/TN zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the Commission’s actions in relation to the phasing out of two language sections in the European School at Culham in the United Kingdom.
Pritožba je zadevala ravnanje Komis` e v zvezi s postopnim odpravljanjem dveh jezikovnih oddelkov na evropski šoli v Culhamu v Veliki Britan`i.
The complainants argued that the Board of Governors’ decision in this regard had not been taken in conformity with its rules of procedure and that the procedure for making a decision on the closure of a school or a language section had not been followed.
Pritožniki so trdili, da vzgojiteljski svet odloÏitve o odpravi oddelkov ni sprejel v skladu s svojim poslovnikom in da ni upošteval postopka, ki velja za zaprtje šole ali jezikovnega oddelka.
Since the Commission had proposed and voted in favour of the phasing out of the two language sections, the complainants alleged that it had failed to promote good administration in the European Schools, especially as regards the transparency and reasoning of decisions, as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Po mnenju pritožnikov Komis` a s tem, ko je predlagala in glasovala za odpravo oddelkov, ni delovala v prid krepitve dobrega upravljanja evropskih šol, še posebej kar zadeva preglednost in utemeljenost odloÏitev, kot zahteva Listina Evropske un`e o temeljnih pravicah.
The Commission also appeared to argue that the Charter of Fundamental Rights does not apply to the European Schools but that fundamental rights in relation to decisions of the Board of Governors are protected by national laws and international agreements.
Iz razlage Komis` e je bilo prav tako mogoÏe razbrati, da se listina o temeljnih pravicah ne nanaša na evropske šole, temveÏ da temeljne pravice, povezane z odloÏitvami vzgojiteljskega sveta, obravnavajo nacionalni zakoni in mednarodni sporazumi.
The Ombudsman recalled that the European Schools are not a Community institution or body and are therefore not within his mandate.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je opomnil, da evropske šole niso instituc` a ali organ Skupnosti, zato niso v njegovi pristojnosti.
The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view, however, that the Commission has a certain responsibility for the European Schools’ operation, including a general responsibility to promote good administration in these schools.
Je pa že od nekdaj menil, da je Komis` a za delovanje teh šol v doloÏeni meri odgovorna in da mora med drugim spodbujati njihovo dobro upravljanje.
Nevertheless, the Ombudsman did not consider that his inquiry into the Commission’s actions in relation to the Board of Governors’ decision to phase out the two language sections in question had revealed any instance of maladministration by the Commission.
Vseeno pri preiskavi delovanja Komis` e v zvezi z od l o Ï it v ` o vzgojiteljskega sveta o odpravi dveh jezikovnih oddelkov ni ugotovil, da bi Komis` a zagrešila kako nepravilnost.
The Ombudsman recalled, however, that during the course of earlier inquiries, the Commission had acknowledged the applicability of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the European Schools. The Ombudsman therefore made a further remark in which he stated that the Commission’s acknowledgement of the Charter’s binding force on the European Schools constitutes an important part of the Commission’s responsibility for promoting good administration in the schools.
Hkrati je opomnil, da se je Komis` a v sklopu njegovih prejšnjih preiskav strinjala, da se listina o temeljnih pravicah uporablja tudi za evropske šole, zato je podal dodatno pripombo, da je s tem, ko je priznala zavezanost evropskih šol spoštovanju listine, v veliki meri odgovorna tudi za dobro upravljanje šol.
He asked the Commission to clarify its stance on this mamer by informing him of the status of the reform measures referred to during his own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2003/LH (see the Ombudsman’s Annual
Komis` o je pozval, da razjasni svoje stališÏe do tega vprašanja in ga seznani s potekom reformnih ukrepov, ki so bili navedeni med njegovo preiskavo na lastno pobudo OI/5/2003/LH (glejte Letno poroÏilo 2004).
Report 2004). In response to the further remark, the Commission communicated to the Ombudsman the status of the reform measures referred to during the own-initiative inquiry, including the implementation of the rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
V odgovor na njegovo dodatno pripombo mu je Komis` a sporoÏila, kako omenjena reforma poteka, pri tem pa navedla tudi podatke o uresniÏevanju pravic iz listine o temeljnih pravicah.
ALLEGED IMPROPER CONTACTS DURING A TENDER PROCEDURE
DOMNEVNI NEDOVOLJENI STIKI MED RAZPISNIM POSTOPKOM
Summary of decision on complaint 1808/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi št. 1808/2004/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant alleged that the Commission had acted improperly in the handling of a call for tenders for the second stage of an R & D programme.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je Komis` a neustrezno izpeljala javni razpis v drugi fazi enega od programov za raziskave in razvoj.
The initiative in question, which had been largely funded by the Commission, was divided into three stages.
Zadevna pobuda, ki jo je v veliki meri financirala Komis` a, je bila razdeljena v tri dele.
Stage one had been awarded to one of the complainant’s competitors, consortium Z. In December 2003, the complainant submimed a bid for stage two.
Prvi del je bil dodeljen enemu od tekmecev pritožnika, in sicer konzorc` u Z.
In response, the Commission argued that the complainant’s proposal was evaluated by independent evaluators, in accordance with oU cial procedures.
Decembra 2003 je pritožnik vložil ponudbo za drugi del.
As regards the telephone call made by a representative of the complainant’s competitor, the Commission took the view that it was only a request for information, during the course of which no substantive issues were discussed.
Jeprav je bila njegova ponudba vkljuÏena v izbirni postopek in je bil oÏitno edini ponudnik – konzorc` Z namreÏ ponudbe ni oddal pravoÏasno – je bila nato izkljuÏena iz postopka, saj so jo ocenjevalci ocenili negativno.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, in reply to the complainant’s request, the Commission had oTered a detailed explanation of the reasons why the complainant’s bid was not accepted.
Pritožnik je menil, da je bil neenakopravno obravnavan in da so službe Komis` e dale prednost konzorc` u Z.
ONLINE AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS
V oporo obtožb je navedel telefonski pogovor med predstavnikom konzorc` a Z in pristojnimi službami Komis`e, do
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH katerega je prišlo kmalu po tem, ko je rok za oddajo ponudb potekel in ko je bilo jasno, da konzorc`Z ponudbe ni oddal pravoÏasno.
, documents relating to the consultation paper on the application of the e-money Directive to mobile operators.
O telefonskem klicu pritožnikovega tekmeca pa je trdila, da je šlo le za prošnjo za informac` e in da v pogovoru bistvena vprašanja niso bila obravnavana.
According to the complainant, the consultation paper concerned legislative mamers, as it could potentially lead to the amending of the e-money Directive.
Službe Komis` e glede na vsebino pogovora niso menile, da bi bilo treba o tem sestaviti zapisnik.
The Commission argued, referring to Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, that to disclose Commission working documents and wrimen contributions prepared in a preliminary phase by Member States and industry would, at the stage in question, be misleading and could prejudice the neutrality of future discussions with Member States, trigger disproportionate or inappropriate reactions from the public, and negatively influence any future debate and legislative initiative.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da ima Komis` a, kot dovoljujejo sodišÏa Skupnosti, obsežna pooblastila pri merilih za dodeljevanje pogodb na javnih razpisih.
In his decision, the Ombudsman took the view that, in the overall scheme of Regulation 1049/2001, the right of citizens to apply for access to a document that has not been made public and to contest an eventual refusal of a confirmatory application provides the primary mechanism to guarantee the widest possible access to documents.
Poudaril je, da je Komis` a v odgovoru na pritožnikovo zahtevo podala podrobne razloge za zavrnitev njegove ponudbe.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that it would be disproportionate and impractical to require the Commission to carry out the same in-depth legal analysis when considering whether to make a legislative document available online, as it must when dealing with a confirmatory application for public access to a document.
Prav tako mu je posredovala izvod poroÏila o ocenjevanju, ki je vseboval utemeljitev ocenjevalcev pri presoji pritožnikovega predloga. Varuh je poroÏilo preuÏil in ocenil, da je v njem dovolj razlogov za stališÏe Komis`e, ki je v skladu z merili v delovnem programu.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission appeared genuinely to have considered whether to make the documents in question accessible online.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da so nekatera dejstva v zvezi s primerom napeljala pritožnika, da podvomi o primernosti ravnanja Komis`e, vendar po natanÏni preuÏitvi vseh dostopnih podatkov ni našel dokazov o neprimernem ravnanju.
Furthermore, the complainant had exercised the right to apply for access and had had the opportunity to make a confirmatory application.
Je pa poudaril, da bi imela Komis` a lažje delo, Ïe bi lahko pritožniku izroÏila zapisnik o zadevnem telefonskem pogovoru.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the complainant’s allegation were justified. ed.
Varuh je zato nanjo naslovil dodatno pripombo, v kateri je predlagal, naj znova preuÏi svoja pravila o zapisovanju telefonskih klicev v okviru javnih razpisov, da bi se v prihodnosti izognila podobnim primerom.
ACCESS TO A MISSION REPORT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN ARTICLE 228 PROCEDURE
DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV V SPLETU
Summary of decision on complaint 2821/2004/OV against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi št. 2066/2004/TN zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, an association for the protection of sea turtles, applied to the Commission’s DG Environment for access to a report of a mission by the Commission services to the Greek island of Zakynthos, which had investigated the situation regarding the protection of sea turtles.
Pritožnik je med drugim trdil, da Komis` a v spletu ni objavila dokumentov o posvetovalnem gradivu o uporabi direktive o elektronskem denarju za mobilne operaterje, kar bi morala storiti v skladu s Ïlenom 2(4) Uredbe št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e.10 e.10
The mission had been carried out in the framework of the Commission’s initiation of a procedure against Greece under Article 228 of the EC Treaty for failure to take all the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice.
Po njegovih navedbah se je posvetovalno gradivo nanašalo na pravne zadeve, saj bi lahko morebiti privedlo do spremembe direktive o elektronskem denarju.
Following a confirmatory application, partial access to the report was given, excluding those parts containing technical or legal assessments or opinions related to the ongoing proceedings.
Komis` a se je v odgovoru sklicevala na Ïlen 4(3) Uredbe št. 1049/2001, da bi bilo razkritje njenih delovnih dokumentov in pisnih prispevkov, ki so jih v predhodni fazi pripravile države Ïlanice in podjetja, na tej stopnji zavajajoÏe in bi lahko ogrozilo nepristranskost v pogovorih z državami Ïlanicami, povzroÏilo nesorazmeren in neprimeren odziv javnosti ter škodovalo prihodnjim razpravam in zakonodajnim pobudam.