natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It argued that Parliament’s stance on the mamer, including a statement that Swedish speakers only represent 5.6% of the Finnish population, was not in tune with Finland’s Constitution, which provides for equality between the two languages.
Menila je, da stališÏe Parlamenta do zadeve, vkljuÏno z izjavo, da je švedsko govoreÏih prebivalcev Finske le 5,6 odstotka, ni v skladu s finsko ustavo, ki zagotavlja enakopravnost obeh jezikov.
The complainant also argued that such equality is upheld in national elections in Finland and that there was no reason to depart from this practice in European elections.
Pritožnica je navedla, da se na nacionalnih volitvah na Finskem enakopravnost jezikov spoštuje in da ni bilo nobenega razloga za opustitev te navade na evropskih volitvah.
The complainant claimed that Parliament should take action to correct the alleged act of maladministration.
Zahtevala je, naj Parlament to nepravilnost odpravi.
Parliament stated that its Information OU ce in Finland has a policy of working in both Finnish and Swedish when providing services to, and answering inquiries from, Finnish citizens.
Parlament je navedel, da njegova informac` ska pisarna na Finskem državljanom zagotavlja storitve in odgovarja na njihove poizvedbe tako v finskem kot v švedskem jeziku.
As regards the campaign for the 2004 European elections, some marketing projects had been prepared solely in Finnish, one being the street-level poster campaign. This poster campaign did not, however, contain any new information that had not already been provided in Swedish by other means.
V kampanji za evropske volitve leta 2004 so bili nekateri trženjski projekti res pripravljeni samo v fi n š Ï in i , med drugim uliÏni plakati, vendar na njih ni bilo novih informac` , ki ne bi bile na voljo v švedšÏini iz drugih virov.
The Ombudsman was not satisfied that Parliament had responded adequately to the complainant’s allegation and claim.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni bil zadovoljen z odgovorom Parlamenta na pritožniÏino obtožbo in zahtevo.
Recalling that Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits any discrimination based on language, he took the view that the burden of proof lay with Parliament to show that its language policy in this case was appropriate and proportionate.
Skliceval se je na Ïlen 21 listine o temeljnih pravicah, ki prepoveduje diskriminac`o na osnovi jezika, in ocenil, da mora Parlament dokazati, da je bila njegova jezikovna politika v tem primeru primerna in sorazmerna.
The Ombudsman considered that Parliament’s explanation was not convincing and proposed a friendly solution whereby Parliament would acknowledge the shortcomings of the campaign, as well as the fact that the proportion of the Finnish population that speaks Swedish is not relevant to the status of that language as an oU cial language of the EU or to its status under the Finnish Constitution.
Menil je, da razlaga Parlamenta ni prepriÏljiva, in predlagal sporazumno rešitev, pri Ïemer naj bi Parlament priznal pomanjkljivosti kampanje in dejstvo, da delež švedsko govoreÏega prebivalstva Finske ni bistven za status švedšÏine kot uradnega jezika EU ali njen status v finski ustavi.
Parliament accepted this friendly solution and promised to take greater care in the future, thereby satisfying the complainant.
Parlament je sprejel to sporazumno rešitev in se zavezal, da bo v prihodnje previdnejši, s Ïimer je ugodil pritožnici.
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT AS A “CALL CENTRE” OPERATOR
PRENEHANJE ZAPOSLITVE NA MESTU TELEFONISTKE V KLICNEM CENTRU
Summary of decision on complaint 1336/2003/IP against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1336/2003/IP zoper Evropsko komis` o
On 1 July 2003, the complainant, who had completed her inservice traineeship with the Commission on 31 March 2003, started to work on the Commission premises as a “call centre” operator at DG Personnel and Administration.
1. jul` a 2003 je pritožnica, ki je 31. marca 2003 dokonÏala opravljanje prakse pri Komis`i, zaÏela delati kot telefonistka klicnega centra generalnih direktoratov kadrovske službe in uprave v prostorih Komis` e.
On 4 July 2003, she was informed that, in accordance with point 19 of the Rules governing inservice training with the Commission of the European Communities, according to which “trainees cannot benefit from any form of contract with the Commission until one year a W er completing their inservice training”, she could not continue her job.
4. jul` a 2003 je bila obvešÏena, da v skladu s toÏko 19 pravilnika o opravljanju prakse pri Komis` i Evropskih skupnosti, po katerem lahko praktikanti sklepajo pogodbe s Komis` o šele eno leto po izteku prakse, ne more ostati na tem delovnem mestu.
The complainant alleged unfairness by the Commission because it had taken the decision that she could not work as a “call centre” operator only a W er she had started the job.
Pritožnica je Komis` o obtožila nepraviÏnosti, ker je sklenila, da ne more biti zaposlena kot telefonistka v klicnem centru, potem ko je že zaÏela delati.
Furthermore, she alleged that the rules invoked by the Commission should not apply to her case, since her contract was with a company and not with the Commission.
Trdila je še, da pravila Komis` e v njenem primeru ne veljajo, saj je pogodbo sklenila s podjetjem, ne s Komis` o.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should pay her the equivalent of six months salary, corresponding to the duration of the contract she had signed.
Zato je zahtevala, da ji Komis` a izplaÏa šest meseÏnih plaÏ, kolikor je trajala pogodba, ki jo je podpisala.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY an instance of maladministration, since the Commission had not shown that it would have been impossible to carry out the examination of the complainant’s dossier before she started her job.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ocenil, da bi bilo lahko dejstvo, da je Komis` a sprejela sklep o pritožnici, potem ko je ta že zaÏela delati v klicnem centru, nepravilnost, saj ni dokazala, da dokumentac`e pritožnice ni bilo mogoÏe preuÏiti, preden je ta zaÏela delati.
He also considered that the application of the provision laid down in point 19 of the Rules in the complainant’s case and the Commission’s decision not to allow her to continue her job as a “call centre” operator could constitute an instance of maladministration.
Menil je še, da bi bila lahko tudi uporaba doloÏb iz toÏke 19 omenjenega pravilnika v pritožniÏinem primeru in sklep Komis`e, da ne more nadaljevati službe v klicnem centru, nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman therefore took the view that it would indeed appear to be appropriate for the Commission to consider oTering the complainant adequate compensation for the material loss she seemed to have s u T ered on account of the Commission’s behaviour and proposed a friendly solution to this eTect. ect.
Varuh je menil, da bi bilo primerno, Ïe bi Komis` a pritožnici ponudila ustrezno nadomestilo za materialno škodo, ki jo je utrpela zaradi njenega ravnanja, in predlagal sporazumno rešitev.
The Commission agreed that it would have been possible to take adequate measures in order to inform the complainant about the impossibility for her to start her job as a “call centre” operator before 1 July 2003.
Komis` a se je strinjala, da bi bila lahko ustrezno ukrepala in obvestila pritožnico, da ne more zaÏeti delati v klicnem centru pred 1. jul` em 2003.
Although the Commission did not share the Ombudsman’s view as to possible maladministration on its part, it was willing to oTer the complainant EUR 1 000 in the framework of the relevant procedure and in a spirit of conciliation.
Jeprav se ni strinjala z mnenjem varuha, da gre pri njenem ravnanju morda za nepravilnost, je pritožnici v okviru upoštevnega postopka in v duhu sprave ponudila nadomestilo 1 000 EUR.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman that she accepted the Commission’s oTer and the Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Pritožnica je Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic obvestila, da sprejema ponudbo Komis`e, zato je primer zakljuÏil.
Summary of decision on complaint 2188/2003/OV against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2188/2003/OV zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant was a Greek national who had worked as an auxiliary agent at the Commission from July 1965 to December 1968 and subsequently returned to Greece.
Pritožnik grške narodnosti je delal kot pomožni uslužbenec Komis` e od jul` a 1965 do decembra 1968, nato pa se vrnil v G r Ï ` o.
In 2002, the Belgian National Pensions OU ce informed him that the Commission had not paid pension contributions for the years 1967 and 1968. Because of this, he encountered problems with his pension entitlements with the Greek Social Insurance Organisation (IKA).
Leta 2002 ga je belg`ski nacionalni pokojninski zavod obvestil, da Komis` a ni plaÏala pokojninskih prispevkov za leti 1967 in 1968, zato se je zapletlo z njegovimi pokojninskimi pravicami pri grškem zavodu za socialno zavarovanje. Pritožnik se je obrnil na Komis`o, ki ga je obvestila, da je bil v letih 1967 in 1968 vkljuÏen v prostovoljno zavarovanje grškega pokojninskega sistema.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that the Commission should recognise that it was obliged to insure him under the Belgian pension scheme for the entire period that he had worked as an auxiliary agent.
V pritožbi Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je pritožnik trdil, da ga je bila Komis` a dolžna zavarovati v okviru belg`skega pokojninskega zavarovanja za celotno obdobje, ko je delal kot pomožni uslužbenec.
The Commission observed that no contributions to the Belgian Social Security OU ce (ONSS) had been paid a W er September 1966 and that the complainant had since then been insured under a Greek voluntary insurance scheme.
Komis` a je ugotovila, da po septembru 1966 prispevki belg`skemu zavodu za socialno zavarovanje niso bili plaÏani in da je imel pritožnik od takrat sklenjeno grško prostovoljno pokojninsko zavarovanje. Poudarila je še, da ne hrani veÏ zadevnih plaÏilnih list, tako da ne more dokazati, da je pritožniku prenehala trgati socialne prispevke od plaÏe.
EXEMPTION FROM THE AGE LIMIT FOR A TRAINEESHIP
Ker Komis` a tega ni storila, gre za nepravilnost.
Summary of decision on complaint 518/2004/MF against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 518/2004/MF zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to reply to her request for an exemption from the age limit of 30 years that applied to applicants for inservice traineeships.
Pritožnica je trdila, da Komis` a ni odgovorila na njeno zahtevo za izjemo pri starostni omejitvi 30 let, ki velja za kandidate za opravljanje prakse. Menila je, da bi morala biti njena vloga sprejeta.
This was due to the wrong encoding of refusal reasons into a new computerised system.
To se je zgodilo zaradi napaÏnega šifriranja pri vnosu razlogov za zavrnitev v novi raÏunalniški sistem.
However, as soon as this error became known, an additional explanatory lemer was sent to the complainant, in which the reasons for refusing her request for an exemption from the age limit were explained.
Takoj ko je bila napaka odkrita, je urad pritožnici poslal dodatno pismo s pojasnilom razlogov za zavrnitev njene prošnje za izjemo pri starostni omejitvi.
The reasons were the following: (i) the complainant had not given any factual, specific or justifiable reason for an exemption, (ii) the complainant only declared knowledge of one foreign European language (French), whereas applicants from EU Member States were required to have, as a minimum, a good knowledge of at least two Community languages, and (iii) the complainant only indicated one specific Directorate-General in her traineeship application.
Razlogi so bili naslednji: (i) pritožnica ni navedla dejstev ali posebnih oziroma utemeljenih razlogov za izjemo, (ii) izkazala je le znanje enega tujega evropskega jezika (francošÏine), Ïeprav se je od kandidatov iz držav Ïlanic EU zahtevalo dobro znanje najmanj dveh jezikov Skupnosti, (iii) v vlogi za opravljanje prakse je navedla le en generalni direktorat.
On 29 April 2005, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution, in which he asked the Commission to review the complainant’s application for a traineeship on the basis of three considerations.
29. aprila 2005 je Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic predlagal sporazumno rešitev, in sicer je Komis` o prosil, naj znova pretehta pritožniÏino vlogo za opravljanje prakse ter pri tem upošteva naslednja tri dejstva.
Firstly, in view of his draW recommendation to the Commission in case 2107/2002/(BB)PB (see section 3.5.1 below) and the Commission’s decision to abolish the age limit for traineeships, the complainant’s age no longer constituted an obstacle for the admissibility of her application.
PrviÏ, upoštevaje varuhov osnutek priporoÏila Komis` i v primeru 2107/2002/(BB)PB (glejte razdelek 3.5.1 spodaj) in odloÏitev Komis`e, da bo odpravila starostno omejitev za pripravništvo, pritožniÏina starost ni bila veÏ ovira za sprejetje njene vloge. DrugiÏ, varuh je ocenil, da je mogoÏe iz pritožniÏinih pripomb in predložene dokumentac`e sklepati, da ima dobro znanje najmanj dveh jezikov Skupnosti.
Thirdly, the Ombudsman stated that he was not aware of any rule in the Commission decision on traineeships of 7 July 1997 pursuant to which candidates had to indicate a specific number of Directorates-General in which they wished to have their traineeship.
TretjiÏ, varuh v sklepu Komis` e o opravljanju prakse z dne 7. jul` a 1997 ni zasledil pravila, da morajo kandidati navesti doloÏeno število generalnih direktoratov, kjer bi želeli prakso opravljati.
The Commission accepted the friendly solution and stated that it would exceptionally consider the complainant’s fi le as automatically pre-selected for the inservice training session starting on 1 March 2006. The complainant’s name would therefore be included in the list of pre-selected candidates.
Komis` a je sporazumno rešitev sprejela in zagotovila, da bo pritožniÏino vlogo izjemoma uvrstila med vloge za opravljanje prakse z zaÏetkom 1. marca 2006, samodejno izbrane v predizbirnem postopku, pritožnica pa bo tako vkljuÏena na seznam kandidatov, izbranih v predizbirnem postopku.
The complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services that she considered that a friendly solution to her complaint had been achieved. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Pritožnica je obvestila službe Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic, da je bila po njenem mnenju sporazumna rešitev dosežena, zato je varuh primer zakljuÏil.
LATE PAYMENT TO MARIE CURIE FELLOW
ZAPOZNELO IZPLAJILO ŠTIPENDISTKI PROGRAMA MARIE CURIE
Summary of decision on complaint 1772/2004/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1772/2004/GG zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant was awarded a Marie Curie Fellowship under the Fi W h Framework Programme.
Pritožnici je bila v petem okvirnem programu dodeljena štipend`a Marie Curie.
The Commission and the host institution agreed on a contract with a duration of 24 months.
Komis` a in gostiteljska ustanova sta se dogovorili za 24-meseÏno pogodbo.
During these 24 months, the complainant took maternity leave of nine months and asked for an extension of the deadline for the submission of her final report.
Med pogodbenim obdobjem je šla pritožnica na devetmeseÏni porodniški dopust, zato je zaprosila za podaljšanje roka za oddajo konÏnega poroÏila.
The host institution and the Commission agreed.
Gostiteljska ustanova in Komis` a sta se strinjali.
However, due to a mistake on the part of the Commission, the amendment to the contract extended the duration of the project to 35 instead of 33 months.
Zaradi napake Komis` e pa je bilo v popravljeni pogodbi trajanje projekta namesto na 33 mesecev podaljšano na 35 mesecev.
AWer the end of the project, the host institution submimed the complainant’s final report and a request for a final payment amounting to EUR 13 472.
Ko je bil projekt konÏan, je gostiteljska ustanova predložila pritožniÏino konÏno poroÏilo in zahtevek za plaÏilo 13 472 EUR.
Despite numerous approaches to the Commission by the complainant, this amount was paid only eleven months later.
Jeprav se je pritožnica veÏkrat obrnila na Komis`o, je bil ta znesek plaÏan šele Ïez enajst mesecev.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY among other things, that neither the host institution nor the complainant had raised objections concerning the errors in the amendment, that during the period concerned several oUcials dealing with the contract had ended their employment with the Commission and that, on several occasions, there had been an absence of reaction and cooperation from the host institution.
Komis` a je priznala, da je prišlo do nekaj nesporazumov in napak, poudarila pa je, da je pogodbo sklenila z gostiteljsko ustanovo, ne s pritožnico. Med drugim je navedla, da nista ne gostiteljska ustanova ne pritožnica opozorili na napako v popravljeni pogodbi, da je v zadevnem obdobju kar nekaj uradnikov, ki so imeli opraviti s pogodbo, prenehalo delati za Komis`o, ter da se gostiteljska ustanova ob veÏ priložnostih ni odzvala in ni sodelovala.
In particular, he noted that, since it appeared to be standard practice for the host institution to make payments only a W er having received the necessary funds from the Commission, the Commission’s failure to release the funds was bound to aT ect the complainant’s interests.
Poudaril je, da je Komis` a s tem, ko ni sprostila sredstev za štipendiranje, škodovala interesom pritožnice, saj je v navadi, da gostiteljska ustanova štipend`o izplaÏa šele, ko prejme plaÏilo Komis` e.
In the absence of a direct contractual link between the Commission and the complainant, the lamer did not appear to have a claim for interest on account of late payment.
Ker pa med Komis` o in pritožnico ni neposrednega pogodbenega razmerja, slednja ne more zahtevati obresti zaradi zapoznelega plaÏila.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that the errors made by the Commission and the slowness with which these errors had been rectified had resulted in a substantial delay in the payments by the host institution.
Varuh je kljub temu menil, da je zaradi napak Komis`e, ki so bile odpravljene zelo poÏasi, prišlo do obÏutne zamude pri plaÏilu, ki ga je izvedla gostiteljska ustanova.
The Ombudsman therefore proposed to the Commission that, in order to reach a friendly solution, it could consider oTering the complainant reasonable financial compensation for the negative eTects of its errors.
Zato je Komis` i predlagal, naj skuša doseÏi sporazumno rešitev in pritožnici ponudi primerno denarno nadomestilo za neugodne posledice, ki so nastale zaradi njenih napak.
The Commission replied that a number of elements identified by the Ombudsman, as well as the exceptional circumstances of the case, had led it to propose to the complainant the amount of EUR 596.11, corresponding to the interest accrued on the outstanding payment.
Komis` a je odgovorila, da je zaradi dejstev, na katera je opozoril varuh, in izjemnih okolišÏin tega primera pritožnici ponudila znesek 596,11 EUR, koliko znašajo zamudne obresti za zapoznelo plaÏilo.
The complainant expressed satisfaction with this oTer and with the Ombudsman’s handling of the mamer. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Pritožnica je bila zadovoljna s ponudbo in z varuhovim posredovanjem, zato je slednji primer zakljuÏil.
CASES CLOSED WITH A CRITICAL REMARK BY THE OMBUDSMAN
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUJENIS KRITIJNO OCENOEVROPSKEGA VARUHA JLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
DELAY IN PROVIDING ACCESS TO A DOCUMENT
ZAMUDA PRI ZAGOTAVLJANJU DOSTOPA DO DOKUMENTA
Summary of decision on complaint 1756/2004/MF against the European Parliament
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1756/2004/MF zoper Evropski parlament
The complainant alleged that the Parliament had failed to give him access to the decision of the Appointing Authority, dated 19 November 2003, modifying the place of employment of one of his colleagues within the deadline foreseen in Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents14.
14 do dokumentov Parlamenta, Sveta in Komis`e, e, ni omogoÏil dostopa do sklepa pristojnega organa z dne 19. novembra 2003, s katerim je bil spremenjen kraj zaposlitve enega od njegovih sodelavcev. Trdil je, da bi mu Parlament dostop do tega dokumenta moral omogoÏiti.
Parliament stated that the complainant’s request for access had not been dealt with within the legal framework of Regulation 1049/2001.
Parlament je priznal, da pritožnikove zahteve za dostop ni obravnaval v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001.
Given that Parliament oUcials benefit from privileged access to d iT erent sources of information, Parliament advised applicants not to use the procedure set out in Regulation 1049/2001 when the request for access concerned documents already made public.
Ker pa imajo uradniki Parlamenta privilegiran dostop do razliÏnih virov informac` , je prosilcem svetoval, naj se ne sklicujejo na postopek iz Uredbe št. 1049/2001, kadar žel`o dostopati do že objavljenih dokumentov.
Following the Ombudsman’s request for an opinion on the complaint, Parliament sent the requested document to the complainant.
Ko je prejel varuhovo zahtevo za mnenje o pritožbi, je Parlament pritožniku zahtevani dokument poslal.
The legal uncertainty which resulted from the lack of hierarchy
Pritožnikova zahteva ni bila dosledno obravnavana zaradi pravne negotovosti, posledice nejasne hierarh`e med kadrovskimi predpisi, Uredbo št. 1049/2001 in Uredbo št. 45/2001 o varstvu podatkov.15 Parlament je sprejel potrebne ukrepe, da bi svojim službam omogoÏil hitro obdelavo zahtev za dostop do dokumentov.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY between the StaT Regulations, Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 45/2001 on data protection15 explained the lack of consistency in the treatment of the complainant’s request.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
The Ombudsman noted that the complainant had finally obtained access to the document requested. However, he recalled that Article 7(1) of Regulation 1049/2001 requires an application for access to a document to be handled promptly.
Varuh je ugotovil, da je pritožnik dobil dostop do zahtevanega dokumenta, vendar je pripomnil, da Ïlen 7(1) Uredbe št. 1049/2001 predvideva takojšnjo obdelavo prošenj za dostop do dokumentov.
He noted that in his confirmatory application of 3 May 2004, the complainant had mentioned Regulation 1049/2001 as the legal basis for his request for access.
Ugotovil je še, da je pritožnik v potrdilni prošnji z dne 3. maja 2004 navedel Uredbo št. 1049/2001 kot pravno podlago svoje zahteve za dostop.
The Ombudsman considered that it clearly emerged from the Parliament’s lemer of 9 August 2004 that it intended to apply Regulation 1049/2001 to the complainant’s case. He therefore took the view that Parliament should either have handled the complainant’s lemer of 3 May 2004 as a confirmatory application in conformity with Regulation 1049/2001 or have explained the reasons why it considered that this lemer should be treated as a new request for access.
Varuh je menil, da je iz pisma Parlamenta z dne 9. avgusta 2004 jasno razvidno, da namerava v pritožnikovem primeru uporabiti Uredbo št. 1049/2001, zato je ocenil, da bi moral Parlament v skladu z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 pritožnikovo pismo z dne 3. maja 2004 obravnavati kot potrdilno prošnjo ali pa pojasniti razloge, zakaj naj bi se to pismo obravnavalo kot nova zahteva za dostop.
The Ombudsman further noted that more than three months elapsed between the complainant’s confirmatory application and the date when he was granted access to the relevant document. The Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je tudi ugotovil, da so od pritožnikove potrdilne prošnje in dne, ko je konÏno dobil dostop do zadevnega dokumenta, pretekli tr`e meseci, zato je napisal kritiÏno oceno.