natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3.1 The complainant’s original claim was that, if the financial evaluation was made on the basis of the global price, the Commission should suspend the procedure and review whether the use of this wrongful evaluation method resulted in an incorrect ranking of tenders.
3.1 Pritožnik je prvotno zahteval, da bi Komisij a morala začasno prekiniti postopek in pregledati, če je uporaba napačne metode vrednotenja povzročila nepravilno razvrstitev ponudnikov, če je bilo f i finančno vrednotenje izvedeno na podlagi celotne cene.
If this is the case, the proposals should be recalculated on the basis of unit prices.
V tem primeru bi morala biti ponudba ponovno preračunana na podlagi cene enote.
In his observations on the Commission’s reply to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution the complainant submi ed a new claim for damages.
V svojih pripombah na odgovore Komisij e na predlog Varuha za poravnavo je pritožnik predložil nov odškodninski zahtevek.
3.2 As regards the complainant’s original claim, the Ombudsman recalled that, as mentioned in point 1.3 above, a complaint to the Ombudsman does not have a suspensive effect on administrative procedures, nor can the Ombudsman set aside a decision to award a contract.
3.2 V zvezi s prvotnimi zahtevami pritožnika je Varuh opozoril, kot je že omenjeno v točki 1.3 zgoraj, da pritožba pri Varuhu nima suspenzivnega učinka na upravne postopke, prav tako pa Varuh ne more razveljaviti odločitve o oddaji naročila.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman observed that the tender procedure in question led to the award of a contract, which expired on 15 June 2002.
Razen tega je Varuh opazil, da je obravnavani razpisni postopek za oddajo naročila privedel do oddaje naročila, ki je poteklo 15. junij a 2002.
Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that it is no longer possible to comply with the complainant’s claims to suspend and review the evaluation.
Zato je Varuh zaključil, da zahtev pritožnika po začasni prekinitvi postopka in ponovnem pregledu ocenitve ni več mogoče izpolniti.
3.3 As regards the complainant’s new claim for damages, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant urged a quick friendly solution to the case.
3.3 V zvezi z novim odškodninskim zahtevkom pritožnika je Varuh ugotovil, da je pritožnik pozval k hitri sporazumni rešitvi tega primera.
The Ombudsman considered, however, that it was not possible for him to achieve a friendly solution in this case, because the Commission had already rejected the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution. The Ombudsman therefore
Varuh je menil, da zanj v tem primeru vseeno ni bilo mogoče doseči poravnave, ker je Komisij a njegov predlog za to že zavrnila.
Decisions following an inquiry considered that it was appropriate to close the case with a critical remark concerning the instance of maladministration identified in paragraph 2.4 above and for the complainant to address his new claim for damages directly to the Commission.
Varuh je zato menil, da je primerno, da se primer zaključi s kritično pripombo glede nepravilnosti, ugotovljeno v odstavku 2.4 zgoraj, in da pritožnik svoj odškodninski zahtevek naslovi neposredno na Komisijo.
The Ombudsman noted that the complainant was aware of the possibility to bring legal proceedings to enforce his claim.
Varuh je ugotovil, da je bila pritožniku poznana možnost, da lahko sproži sodni postopek za uveljavitev svoje zahteve.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Na osnovi preiskav Varuha glede te pritožbe je treba podati naslednjo kritično pripombo:
The Ombudsman noted that in its response to the Ombudsman’s proposal for a friendly solution, the Commission acknowledged that its reply to the complainant’s request for clarification of the tender stated that the global price method would not be used.
Varuh je ugotovil, da je Komisij a v svojem odgovoru na njegov predlog o poravnavi potrdila, da je njen odgovor na zahtevo pritožnika po pojasnitvi ponudbe vseboval navedbo, da metoda celotne cene ne bo uporabljena.
Since the Commission’s opinion stated that the global pricing method is always used for monitoring contracts, the Commission appeared to have provided incorrect information in reply to the complainant’s request for clarification of the tender and, thereby, failed to comply with the rules governing the tender procedure.
Ker je bilo v mnenju Komisij e navedeno, da se metoda celotne cene vedno uporablja za nadzorne pogodbe, se zdi, da je Komisij a posredovala napačne informacij e v odgovoru pritožniku na njegovo zahtevo po pojasnitvi ponudbe in tako ni ravnala v skladu s pravili postopka za oddajo naročila.
This constituted an instance of maladministration.
To je bil primer nepravilnosti.
Given that the critical remark concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue the ma er further.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ta kritična pripomba nanaša na postopke v zvezi z določenimi dogodki v preteklosti, ni smiselno, da se obravnavanje zadeve nadaljuje.
FUNCTIONING OF THE IST PROGRAMME
LETNO POROČILO 2003
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
DELOVANJE PROGRAMA IST
Decision on complaint 221/2002/ME against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 221/2002/ME zoper Evropsko komisij o
In February 2002, a complaint was lodged with the Ombudsman on behalf of MRA Consultants Limited against the European Commission concerning the functioning of the IST Programme under the Fi h Framework Programme.
Pritožba je bila februarja 2002 vložena pri Varuhu v imenu MRA Consultants Limited zoper Evropsko komisij o v zvezi z delovanjem programa IST v okviru Petega okvirnega programa.
In summary, the complainant alleged malfunctioning of the IST Programme as well as use of incorrect evaluation criteria in 2000.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je program IST deloval slabo in da so bila leta 2000 uporabljena merila vrednotenja napačna.
The complainant in particular pointed out that the evaluation in 2000 was based on funding per partner instead of funding per user as stated in the IST Guide for Proposers.
Pritožnik je še posebej poudaril, da je vrednotenje v letu 2000 namesto na denarni podpori na partnerja, tako kot je to zapisano v IST-ovem Vodniku za predlagatelje, temeljil na denarni podpori na uporabnika.
The complainant claimed improved administration and effectiveness of the IST Programme and the use of correct evaluation criteria.
Pritožnik je zahteval izboljšanje upravljanja in učinkovitosti programa IST ter uporabo pravilnih metod vrednotenja.
The Commission argued that it had taken the complainant’s allegations very seriously, checked the evaluation and explained its standpoint to the complainant on several occasions.
Komisij a je zatrjevala, da je trditve pritožnika vzela zelo resno, preverila vrednotenje in mu večkrat pojasnila svoje stališče.
The evaluation was based on the text of the Call, work programme and Evaluation Manual and the correct evaluation criteria had therefore been used.
Vrednotenje je temeljilo na besedilu razpisa za oddajo predlogov, delovnem programu in Priročniku za vrednotenje, zato je bila uporabljena metoda vrednotenja pravilna.
According to the Commission, the terms “partner” and “user” were interchangeable.
Po mnenju Komisij e sta izraza “partner” ter “uporabnik” medsebojno zamenljiva.
The Ombudsman found that, according to the Evaluation Summary Report, the best proposal did not meet the threshold for three of the fi ve applicable criteria.
Varuh je ugotovil, da v skladu z zbirnim poročilom o vrednotenju najboljši predlog ni ustrezal pragu treh od petih uporabnih meril.
The fi ve criteria mentioned were the same as those in the Evaluation Manual applicable to the call.
Pet omenjenih kriterijev je enakih tistim v Priročniku za vrednotenje, ki se uporablja za razpis.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that the Call for proposals did not refer to the Guide for Proposers as a binding document and that the Guide for Proposers itself stated that it does not supersede the relevant rules and conditions.
Varuh je tudi ugotovil, da se razpis za oddajo predlogov ni nanašal na Vodnik za predlagatelje kot zavezujoč dokument in da je tudi v samem Vodniku za predlagatelje navedeno, da ne nadomešča ustreznih pravil in pogojev.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman did not consider that it had been demonstrated that the Commission had applied incorrect evaluation criteria.
V teh okoliščinah je Varuh menil, da ni bilo dokazano, da je Komisij a uporabila napačna merila vrednotenja.
The Ombudsman did however find it necessary to make a critical remark in relation to the Commission’s use of the terms “user” and “partner”.
Kljub temu pa je menil, da je potrebno podati kritično pripombo v zvezi s tem, kako Komisij a uporablja izraza “uporabnik” in “partner”. Opozoril je, da načelo dobrega upravljanja predpostavlja, da Komisij a državljanom priskrbi točne informacije.
The Commission should therefore avoid presenting information in a form which is misleading or unnecessarily complex.
Zato bi se morala Komisij a izogniti podajanju informacij v zavajajoči in po nepotrebnem zapleteni obliki.
The Ombudsman noted that, in ordinary language, the terms user and partner are not synonymous.
Varuh je poudaril, da v vsakdanjem jeziku izraza uporabnik in partner pomensko nista enaka.
The Ombudsman also noted that the programme in question was governed by a large number of documents, of varying legal status and with multiple cross-
Poudaril je tudi, da je zadevni program opredeljevalo veliko število dokumentov z različnim pravnim statusom in z večkratnimi navzkrižnimi sklicevanji.
Decisions following an inquiry references. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s use of the terms user and partner interchangeably was an additional and unnecessary obstacle to clear communication with citizens.
V teh okoliščinah je Varuh menil, da je bila Komisijina uporaba izrazov uporabnik in partner kot medsebojno zamenljivih izrazov dodatna in nepotrebna ovira za jasno komunikacij o z državljani.
ALLEGED FAILURE TO TAKE A DECISION IN AN INFRINGEMENT COMPLAINT (ARTICLE 226 EC)
DOMNEVNA OPUSTITEV SPREJETJA ODLOČITVE O PRITOŽBI ZARADI KRŠITVE
Decision on complaint 1237/2002/(PB)OV against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1237/2002/(PB)OV zoper Evropsko komisij o
The origin of this complaint is a previous complaint to the Ombudsman (801/2000/(ME)PB) lodged by the complainant regarding the same ma er and closed on 8 June 2001.
Izvor te pritožbe je predhodna pritožba pri Varuhu (801/2000/(ME)PB), ki jo je pritožnik vložil zaradi iste zadeve, zaključena pa je bila 8. junij a 2001.
In that previous complaint, the complainant alleged that the European Commission had dealt inadequately with his infringement complaint against Denmark.
Pritožnik je v predhodni pritožbi trdil, da je Komisij a z njegovo pritožbo zaradi kršitve zoper Dansko ravnala neprimerno.
This infringement complaint was submi ed to the Commission and registered by its General Secretariat in January 1998.
Pritožba zaradi kršitve je bila posredovana Komisij i in jo je januarja 1998 vknjižil generalni sekretariat.
The complainant’s grievance against the Danish authorities was, in summary, that their taxation of used cars imported from other EU Member States is contrary to the EC rules on free movement.
Pritožnikova pritožba zoper danske oblasti je bila na kratko v tem, da je njihova obdavčitev rabljenih avtomobilov, uvoženih iz drugih držav članic EU, v nasprotju s predpisi Skupnosti o prostem pretoku.
In its answer to the allegation, the Commission stated that the reason for its delay in taking a final stand regarding the infringement complaint was a pending court case, the outcome of which it wished to await.
V odgovoru na to trditev je Komisij a navedla, da je bil razlog za zamudo v sprejemanju končnega stališča glede pritožbe zaradi kršitve sodni primer v teku, na katerega izid je želela počakati.
The Ombudsman accepted the Commission’s stance and noted further that the Commission had undertaken to take a decision on the complainant’s infringement complaint in October 2001, of which the complainant and the Ombudsman would be informed.
Evropski varuh je sprejel stališče Komisij e in nadalje navedel, da se je Komisij a obvezala sprejeti odločitev v zvezi s pritožbo zaradi kršitve oktobra 2001 ter o njej obvestiti Varuha in pritožnika.
On 15 February 2002, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he had received no information from the Commission concerning his complaint.
Pritožnik je 15. februarja 2002 Varuha obvestil, da od Komisij e ni dobil nobene informacij e glede pritožbe.
The Ombudsman invited the Commission to comment on this statement.
Varuh je Komisij o pozval, da k tej navedbi poda svoje pripombe. Komisij a je odgovorila,
The Commission replied that the delay was due to new court cases and the failure by some Member States to reply to a request for opinions.
Sklepi preiskav da je do zamude prišlo zaradi novih sodnih primerov in dejstva, da nekatere države članice na zahtevo po posredovanju mnenja niso odgovorile.
The Commission repeated its intention to inform the complainant of the outcome of his infringement complaint, but this time the Commission did not provide any timetable for its conclusions.
Komisij a je ponovila, da ima namen pritožnika obvestiti o izidu njegove pritožbe zaradi kršitve, vendar tokrat ni posredovala nobenega roka za svoje zaključke.
In June 2002, the complainant had still not received information on any decision taken by the Commission concerning his infringement complaint.
Junij a 2002 pritožnik še vedno ni prejel informacij e o kakršnikoli odločitvi, ki bi jo sprejela Komisij a v zvezi z pritožbo zaradi kršitve.
He therefore lodged this second complaint against the Commission with the Ombudsman.
Zato je pri Varuhu vložil svojo drugo pritožbo zoper Komisijo. o.
In his complaint, lodged in June 2002, the complainant alleges that the Commission has acted contrary to good administration by failing to take a stand on the issues raised by him in his infringement complaint.
V pritožbi iz junij a 2002 pritožnik trdi, da je Komisij a s tem, ko ni zavzela stališča glede vprašanj v njegovi pritožbi zaradi kršitve, ravnala v nasprotju z načeli dobrega upravljanja.
The complainant claims that the Commission should immediately take a stand on the issues raised in his infringement complaint.
Pritožnik zahteva, da Komisij a nemudoma zavzame stališče glede vprašanj v njegovi pritožbi zaradi kršitve.
The Commission’s opinion acknowledges the fact that three issues put forward by the complainant remain to be answered:
Mnenje Komisij e potrjuje dejstvo, da ostajajo neodgovorjena tri vprašanja, ki jih je postavil pritožnik.
1 The first issue concerns cross-border long-term leasing of vehicles, which are registered in Germany but with an intended use in Denmark.
1 Prvo vprašanje zadeva čezmejni dolgoročni najem vozil, registriranih v Nemčiji, toda namenjenih za uporabo na Danskem.
The Commission has informed the complainant that it wanted to await the ruling of the Court of Justice in Case C-451/99 Cura Anlagen GmbH before taking any other initiative as regards rules concerning cross-border long-term leasing of vehicles.
Komisij a je pritožnika obvestila, da je želela počakati na odločitev Evropskega sodišča v primeru C-451/99 Cura Anlagen GmbH, preden kakorkoli ukrepa v zvezi s predpisi o čezmejnem dolgoročnem najemu vozil.
The Court of Justice delivered its judgement on 21 March 2002.
Sodišče je izdalo sodbo 21. marca 2002.
The Commission will soon address itself to all the Member States asking them whether their rules and regulations are in conformity with this judgement.
Komisij a se bo kmalu obrnila na države članice z vprašanjem, ali so njihova pravila in uredbe v skladu s to sodbo.
2 The second issue concerns the Danish taxation of used cars imported to Denmark from another EU country.
2 Drugo vprašanje zadeva dansko obdavčevanje rabljenih avtomobilov, uvoženih na Dansko iz druge države članice EU.
The Commission has informed the complainant about its intention to await the Court’s ruling in Case C-393/98 Gomes Valente.
Komisij a je pritožnika obvestila o svoji nameri, da počaka na odločitev Sodišča v primeru C-393/98 Gomes Valente.
In addition, the Commission has decided to also await the outcome of Case C-101/00 An i Siilin.
Poleg tega se je Komisij a odločila počakati tudi na odločitev v primeru C-101/00 An i Siilin.
The judgement in the la er case was delivered only very recently, on 19 September 2002.
V slednjem primeru je bila sodba izrečena šele pred kratkim, 19. septembra 2002.
Furthermore, on 1 June 2001, the Commission addressed a Communication to all the Member States to make them aware of the consequences of the Court’s ruling in the Gomes Valente case.
Razen tega je Komisij a 1. junij a 2002 na vse države članice naslovila sporočilo, da bi jih opozorila na posledice sodbe Sodišča v primeru Gomes Valente.
In its reply to that Communication, Denmark assured the Commission that its rules are in conformity with the outcome of the Gomes Valente case.
V odgovoru na to sporočilo je Danska Komisij i zagotovila, da so njeni predpisi v skladu z izidom primera Gomes Valente.
However, some of the Member States have still not replied to the communication.
Nekatere države članice pa na to sporočilo še niso odgovorile.
Since the Commission takes the view that this is an issue that has to be dealt with as a part of an overall strategy, the Commission has still not been able to come to a decision as regards the complainant’s infringement complaint.
Komisij a še vedno ni mogla sprejeti odločitve v zvezi s pritožbo zaradi kršitve, ker meni, da gre za vprašanje, ki ga je treba obravnavati kot del celotne strategije. e.
3 The third issue concerns the qualifications of the persons carrying out the valuation of used motor vehicles imported to Denmark.
3 Tretje vprašanje zadeva usposobljenost oseb, ki ocenjujejo rabljena motorna vozila, uvožena na Dansko.
This valuation is crucial for the amount of Danish Registration Tax to be paid on an imported used vehicle.
Ocenjevanje je ključnega pomena za znesek davka za registracijo na Danskem, ki se plačuje na uvožena rabljena vozila.
The complainant has not made it clear whether these persons are private persons or officials.
Pritožnik ni pojasnil, ali so to posamezniki ali uradniki.
The Commission will contact the complainant to clarify this ma er.
Za pojasnilo te zadeve bo Komisij a vzpostavila stik s pritožnikom.
Furthermore, this issue only came to the Commission’s knowledge through the documents sent by the complainant to the Ombudsman.
Razen tega je Komisij a za to zadevo izvedela iz dokumentov, ki jih je pritožnik poslal Varuhu.
If the complainant had turned directly to the Commission, it would have been possible to deal with the issue more promptly.
Če bi se bil pritožnik obrnil neposredno na Komisijo, bi zadevo lahko obravnavali hitreje.
To sum up its opinion, the Commission concludes that it has not failed to fulfil its obligations towards the complainant.
V povzetku svojega mnenja Komisij a zaključuje, da ni res, da ji ni uspelo izpolniti obveznosti do pritožnika.
The complainant will be personally informed about the Commission’s follow-up of his complaint.
Pritožnik bo osebno obveščen o nadaljnjem obravnavanju njegove vloge.
The course of action chosen is however to solve the problem simultaneously in all the Member States through cooperation and by issuing a Communication wri en in clear and simple language.
Pristop, za katerega so se odločili, pa je istočasno rešiti problem v vseh državah članicah s sodelovanjem ter na podlagi sporočila Komisije, zapisanega v jasnem in preprostem jeziku.
The Commission also points out that due to lack of personnel it has to focus on ma ers with important financial and legal implications.
Komisij a tudi poudarja, da se mora zaradi pomanjkanja osebja osredotočiti na zadeve s pomembnimi f i finančnimi in pravnimi posledicami.
It also points to the fact that the issues concerned are very complex and that they belong to a not yet harmonised area of law, where the rulings of the Court of Justice are the only existing legal reference.
Prav tako opozarja na dejstvo, da so zadevna vprašanja zelo kompleksna in da predstavljajo del še ne harmoniziranega pravnega področja, kjer sodbe Evropskega sodišča predstavljajo edini pravni vir.
The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Commission’s opinion.
Pritožnik je bil pozvan, da poda svoje pripombe k mnenju Komisije.
In reply, the complainant sent a three-page le er and supporting documents, making in summary the following points:
Kot odgovor je pritožnik skupaj s potrebnimi dokumenti poslal pismo, dolgo tri strani, v povzetku pa poudaril naslednje točke:
Finally, the complainant questions why the Commission should not take his complaint seriously since the Danish authorities seem to have taken it seriously by exempting him from paying the tax at issue until the end of 2003.
LETNO POROČILO 2003
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
Slednjič pritožnika zanima, zakaj Komisij a njegove pritožbe ne bi vzela resno, saj so ga danske oblasti s tem v zvezi do konca 2003 oprostile plačila davka, kar kaže, da zadevo obravnavajo resno.
The alleged failure to take a stand on the infringement complaint
Domnevna opustitev zavzetja stališča o pritožbi zaradi kršitve
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission has acted contrary to good administration by failing to take a stand on the issues raised by him in his infringement complaint.
1.1 Pritožnik trdi, da je Komisij a ravnala v nasprotju z načeli dobrega upravljanja, ker ni zavzela stališča v njegovi zadevi glede pritožbe zaradi kršitve.
1.2 The Commission argues that it has not failed to fulfil its obligations towards the complainant.
1.2 Komisij a ugovarja, da ni res, da ni izpolnila obveznosti do pritožnika.
Since the course of action chosen by the Commission is to solve the problems related to car taxation simultaneously in all the Member States it has not yet been able to come to a decision as regards the complainant’s infringement complaint.
Ker se je Komisij a odločila istočasno rešiti probleme v zvezi z obdavčitvijo avtomobilov v vseh državah članicah, glede pritožnikove pritožbe zaradi kršitve še ni mogla sprejeti odločitve.
The complainant will however be personally informed about the Commission’s follow-up of his complaint.
Pritožnik bo osebno obveščen o nadaljnjem obravnavanju njegove vloge.
The Commission also points out that the issue concerned is very complex and belongs to a not yet harmonised field of law.
Komisij a prav tako poudarja, da je zadevno vprašanje zelo kompleksno in sodi na področje prava, ki še ni bilo harmonizirano.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant’s infringement complaint to the Commission was registered by its Secretariat General in January 1998.
1.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da so pritožnikovo pritožbo zoper kršitev, ki jo je vložil pri Komisij i, v generalnem sekretariatu registrirali januarja 1998.
In the framework of the Ombudsman’s own initiative inquiry into the administrative procedures for dealing with complaints concerning Member States’ infringement of Community law (reference 303/97/PD)69, the Commission undertook to take a decision either to close the fi le or to initiate official infringement proceedings within a maximum period of one year from the date on which it was registered, except in special cases, the reasons for which must be stated70.
V okviru Varuhove preiskave na lastno pobudo glede upravnih postopkov za obravnavo pritožb v zvezi s kršitvami prava Skupnosti s strani držav članic (sklic 303/97/PD)69se je Komisij a obvezala, da bo sprejela odločitev – končala zadevo ali začela uradni postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev najkasneje v enem letu od datuma registracije, razen v posebnih primerih, za kar morajo biti navedeni posebni razlogi.70