natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.
Komis` a je varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic pozneje posredovala odgovor francoskega pokojninskega organa, da bi lahko za delavce v kmet`skem sektorju sprejeli doloÏbe, podobne tistim za splošno ureditev, ter da bodo ponovno preuÏili vložene prošnje.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY national legislation, since national courts are in a bemer position than the Ombudsman to deal with such questions.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman concluded that further inquiry into, and consideration of, the complaint was not justified, since it would, in essence, amount to a duplication of the legal proceedings initiated by the complainant before the Greek Council of State.
Glede na predložene dokaze o dejavnostih Komis`e, da bi zagotovila skladnost z zakonodajo Skupnosti v tej zadevi, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic menil, da Komis` a oÏitno ni prekoraÏila svojih pristojnosti kot varuh Pogodbe.
The Ombudsman explained, however, the circumstances in which the complainant might renew his complaint to the Ombudsman a W er the completion of the national legal proceedings.
Podal je dodatno pripombo, da naj bi si Komis` a prizadevala najti rešitev, ki bo pritožniku omogoÏila uživati pravice uslužbenca Evropskih skupnosti.
FREE LENDING OF BOOKS FROM PUBLIC LIBRARIES
PRITOŽBA PO JLENU 226 V PRIMERU PRED NACIONALNIM VRHOVNIM SODIŠJEM
Summary of decision on joint complaints 3452/2004/JMA and others against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3254/2004/(OV)ID zoper Evropsko komis` o
The Ombudsman received a large number of complaints concerning the Commission’s decision to start infringement proceedings against Spain in relation to the implementation of Directive 92/100
V pritožbi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je bilo navedeno, da Komis` a ni ustrezno obravnavala pritožnikove pritožbe po Ïlenu 226, da mu grške oblasti ne priznajo naslova inženir kem`e na podlagi poklicne kvalifi kac` e za inženirja materialov, pridobljene v Veliki Britan`i.
on rights related to copyright in the fi eld of intellectual property
Tožnik je zlasti trdil, da je Komis` a v njegovem primeru napaÏno razlagala in uporabila direktivo št. 89/48/EGS25 ter Ïlena 43 in 47 Pogodbe ES.
According to the complainants, the Commission had taken the view that the practice of Spanish public libraries to lend books to the public free of charge was contrary to the Directive.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pri odloÏanju, ali je dovolj razlogov za preiskavo, pretehtal, ali bi pri ocenjevanju pritožbe moral preuÏiti pravna in dejanska vprašanja iz tožbe pred nacionalnim sodišÏem ali sodišÏem Skupnosti.
They alleged that the Commission’s interpretation of the Directive and its subsequent decision to pursue infringement proceedings against Spain undermined the existence of public libraries as a basic public service and went against the fundamental rights of citizens to have access to culture.
To je še pomembnejše, Ïe pritožba vsebuje vprašanja o razlagi in uporabi nacionalne zakonodaje, saj nacionalna sodišÏa lažje obravnavajo taka vprašanja kot varuh Ïlovekovih pravic.
As part of his inquiry into the case, the Ombudsman requested information from his national and regional counterparts in the European Network of Ombudsmen.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je skrbno preuÏil pritožbo, pritožnikove pripombe na mnenje Komis` e in prošnjo za razveljavitev, ki jo je pritožnik vložil pri Državnem svetu (vrhovnem upravnem sodišÏu) G r Ï ` e septembra 2004, in ugotovil, da bi ocena vsebine pritožnikove obtožbe zahtevala temeljito preuÏitev vprašanj iz pritožnikove prošnje pred grškim vrhovnim upravnim sodišÏem, med drugim vprašanj o razlagi in uporabi grške zakonodaje pri ureditvi poklicnih dejavnosti „inženirja materialov, specializiranega za znanost in tehnolog`o polimerov“, v G r Ï ` i in njihovega razmerja do dejavnosti, ki sod`o na poklicno podroÏje inženirja kem`e v skladu z ureditv`o te države Ïlanice.
On the basis of the responses from the Network, it appeared that many Member States had been able to correctly implement Directive 92/100 by means that do not involve charging individuals for borrowing books from public libraries.
Glede na okolišÏine je varuh sklenil, da nadaljnja preiskava in obravnava te pritožbe nista upraviÏeni, saj bi to pravzaprav pomenilo podvajanje sodnih postopkov, ki jih je pred grškim vrhovnim upravnim sodišÏem sprožil pritožnik.
The Commission explained that it had initiated infringement proceedings not because public libraries in Spain lend books free of charge but because the Spanish authorities had failed to ensure that authors were remunerated for the lending of their works through public libraries.
Pojasnil pa je, v kakšnem primeru lahko pritožnik znova vloži pritožbo pri varuhu, potem ko bo postopek na nacionalnem sodišÏu konÏan.
Respect for the right of copyright and related rights and the remuneration of these rights, as provided for in Directive 92/100, does not mean that borrowers may no longer borrow books free of charge, nor does it mean that libraries are required to pay additional fees.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je prejel veliko število pritožb na sklep Komis`e, da zaÏne postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Špan`i glede izvajanje direktive št. 92/100 o pravicah na podroÏju intelektualne lastnine, sorodnih avtorskim.26
In most Member States this remuneration is financed by the relevant public authorities.
Po navedbah pritožnikov naj bi Komis` a menila, da je brezplaÏna izposoja knjig v španskih javnih knjižnicah v nasprotju s to direktivo.
The Commission also informed the Ombudsman that it had referred the mamer to the Court of Justice (Case C-36/05).
Trdili so, da razlaga direktive in poslediÏni sklep Komis` e o zaÏetku postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Špan`i ogrožata obstoj javnih knjižnic kot osnovne javne storitve in sta v nasprotju s temeljno pravico državljanov do kulture.
In view of the legal proceedings in the Court of Justice, the Ombudsman closed his consideration of the case.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je v preiskavi primera za informac` e zaprosil nacionalne in regionalne kolege v evropskem omrežju varuhov Ïlovekovih pravic.
He underlined that his inquiry, and especially the cooperation with national ombudsmen, had helped clarify for complainants the reasons for the Commission’s actions and the possibilities for correct implementation of the Directive.
Direktiva Sveta 89/48/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o splošnem sistemu priznavanja visokošolskih diplom, pridobljenih s poklicnim izobraževanjem in usposabljanjem, ki traja najmanj tri leta, UL 1989 L 19, str. 16.
Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the fi eld of intellectual property, OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61.
Direktiva Sveta 92/100/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1992 o pravici dajanja v najem in pravici posojanja ter o doloÏenih pravicah, sorodnih avtorski, na podroÏju intelektualne lastnine, UL 1992 L 346, str. 61.
CASES CLOSED AFTER ASPECIAL REPORT
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUJENIPOPOSEBNEMPOROJILU
FAILURE TO GIVE VALID REASONS FOR CONTINUING TO LEGISLATE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS
POMANJKANJE UTEMELJENIH RAZLOGOV ZA NADALJNJE ODLOJANJE ZA ZAPRTIMI VRATI
Summary of special report following complaint 2395/2003/GG against the Council of the European Union
Povzetek splošnega poroÏila o pritožbi 2395/2003/GG zoper Svet Evropske un`e e
The complainants, a German MEP and a representative of the youth group of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), alleged that the Council’s Rules of Procedure were not in conformity with Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Council and the other Community institutions and bodies must take decisions as openly as possible.
Pritožnika, nemški poslanec Evropskega parlamenta in predstavnik podmladka KršÏansko-demokratske un`e (CDU), sta trdila, da poslovnik Sveta ni v skladu s Ïlenom 1(2) Pogodbe o Evropski un`i, ki doloÏa, da morajo Svet in druge instituc` e in organi Skupnosti odloÏati Ïim bolj javno.
The Council argued that the degree of openness of its meetings is a political choice to be made by the Council.
Svet je ugovarjal, da je stopnja javnosti sej politiÏna odloÏitev Sveta.
The Ombudsman disagreed on the grounds that Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union applies to the Council and that, although Article 207 of the EC Treaty provides for it to adopt its own Rules of Procedure, it does not provide that the degree to which its meetings in its legislative capacity are to be open to the public should be regarded as a political choice and leW to the discretion of the Council.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic se s tem ni strinjal, saj Ïlen 1(2) Pogodbe o Evropski un`i velja za Svet in ne doloÏa, da je stopnja, do katere so seje Sveta v zakonodajni funkc` i odprte za javnost, politiÏna odloÏitev, prepušÏena presoji Sveta, Ïeprav Ïlen 207 Pogodbe ES doloÏa, da Svet sprejme svoj poslovnik.
The Council also argued that Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union merely indicated that the future Union should be as open as possible.
Ugovor Sveta je še bil, da Ïlen 1(2) Pogodbe o Evropski un`i le nakazuje, da naj bi bila prihodnja Un`a karseda odprta. Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da je treba upoštevati razvoj dogodkov, odkar je bil Ïlen v sedanji obliki sprejet leta 1997.
He pointed out that the Council had already adopted new Rules of Procedure in 2000 that provided for increased openness of its meetings as a legislator.
Poudaril je, da je Svet sprejel novi poslovnik že leta 2000, in ta doloÏa vse veÏjo odprtost, ko Svet zaseda v vlogi zakonodajalca.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council thus made it clear that steps to increase the transparency of its legislative activity had to and could be taken.
Po mnenju varuha je Svet že jasno pokazal, da je treba in je mogoÏe poveÏati preglednost njegove zakonodajne dejavnosti.
The adoption of these new Rules of Procedure also confirmed that doing so was and is possible under Community law as it presently stands.
S sprejetjem novega poslovnika je potrdil, da je v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo Skupnosti to bilo in je mogoÏe.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Council had failed to submit any valid reasons as to why it should be unable to amend its Rules of Procedure with a view to meeting in public whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity.
Zato je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic sklenil, da Svet ni navedel utemeljenih razlogov, zakaj ne more spremeniti poslovnika, da bi omogoÏil javne seje, kadar deluje v vlogi zakonodajalca.
The Ombudsman forwarded this finding of maladministration to the European Parliament in a special report, with a recommendation that the Council “should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity”.
V posebnem poroÏilu je ugotovitve o nepravilnostih posredoval Evropskemu parlamentu in priporoÏil, da bi moral „Svet Evropske un`e ponovno preuÏiti zavrnitev odprtja za javnost tistih svojih sej, na katerih nastopa v vlogi zakonodajalca“.
In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received 21 additional complaints which involved similar facts and raised identical allegations.
Povzetek posebnega poroÏila po pritožbi 1391/2002/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
The Ombudsman’s inquiry showed that the integration of disabled children into the ordinary education system is a policy goal of the Commission which to date, however, lacks a mandatory character.
Pritožnica, uslužbenka Komis`e, ima hÏer s posebnimi uÏnimi potrebami, ki jih ne morejo zadovoljiti evropske šole, Ïeprav sicer zagotavljajo brezplaÏno šolanje za uslužbence instituc` in organov Skupnosti.
Furthermore, there is considerable divergence among the laws and practices of the Member States in this regard.
Med preiskavo je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic prejel še 21 pritožb s podobnimi dejstvi in enakimi obtožbami.
Against this background, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission had oTered a reasonable explanation as to why the European Schools cater for only some children with special educational needs, while children with a more severe degree of disability are not integrated into the Schools.
V njegovi preiskavi se je pokazalo, da je vkljuÏevanje otrok s posebnimi potrebami v obiÏajni šolski sistem cilj politike Komis`e, zdaj pa še ni obvezujoÏe. Poleg tega se zakoni o tem in praksa v posameznih državah Ïlanicah bistveno razlikujejo.
The Ombudsman was not convinced, however, that the Commission had adequately explained the financial aspects of the mamer.
Glede na to je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic menil, da je Komis` a ustrezno pojasnila, zakaj lahko evropske šole poskrb`o le za nekatere otroke s posebnimi potrebami, medtem ko otroci z veÏjimi potrebami vanje niso vkljuÏeni.
In the absence of such an explanation, the Ombudsman found unjustified discrimination in the d iT ering financial treatment of staT.
Vendar ni bil prepriÏan, da je Komis` a ustrezno pojasnila fi na n Ï n o plat te zadeve, zato je ugotovil neupraviÏeno diskriminac`o pri fi na n Ï ni obravnavi uslužbencev.
The Ombudsman therefore made a draW recommendation to the Commission that it should take the necessary steps to ensure that parents of children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability should not be required to contribute to the educational costs of their children.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pripravil osnutek priporoÏila Komis`i, naj ukrene vse potrebno, da staršem otrok s posebnimi uÏnimi potrebami, ki zaradi stopnje invalidnosti niso vkljuÏeni v evropske šole, ne bi bilo treba prispevati za stroške šolanja svojih otrok.
The Commission’s detailed opinion expressed willingness in principle to review the current policy, subject to budgetary constraints which could be tackled in the budget process.
V podrobnem mnenju je Komis` a izrazila pripravljenost, da naÏeloma ponovno preuÏi sedanjo politiko, njene proraÏunske omejitve pa so lahko obravnavane v proraÏunskem postopku.
Although encouraging, this did not amount to an unequivocal acceptance of the draW recommendation.
Jeprav je bil odgovor spodbuden, Komis` a ni jasno sprejela osnutka priporoÏila.
The Ombudsman therefore considered it appropriate to make a special report to the European Parliament, containing a recommendation in the same terms as the earlier draW recommendation.
Zato se je varuhu zdelo primerno Evropskemu parlamentu predložiti posebno poroÏilo s podobnim priporoÏilom kot v predhodnem osnutku priporoÏila.
PROVISION OF INCORRECT AND MISLEADING INFORMATION TO THE OMBUDSMAN DURING A PREVIOUS INQUIRY
POSREDOVANJE NEPRAVILNIH IN ZAVAJAJOJIH INFORMACL VARUHU JLOVEKOVIH PRAVIC V PREDHODNI PREISKAVI
Summary of special report following complaint 2485/2004/GG against the European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
Povzetek posebnega poroÏila po pritožbi 2485/2004/GG zoper Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF)
The complainant, who was the Brussels correspondent of the German weekly newspaper Stern, had obtained copies of confidential OLAF documents and used these documents in two articles.
Pritožnik, bruseljski dopisnik nemškega tednika Stern, si je priskrbel kop` e zaupnih dokumentov OLAF-a in jih uporabil v dveh Ïlankih.
Two weeks later, OLAF had published a press release in which it stated that “a journalist” had obtained a number of confidential OLAF documents, possibly “by paying a civil servant” and that it had therefore decided to open an internal inquiry.
Dva tedna zatem je OLAF objavil sporoÏilo za javnost, da je „neki novinar“ prejel veliko zaupnih dokumentov OLAF-a, morda „s plaÏilom javnemu uslužbencu“, zato je urad sklenil zaÏeti notranjo preiskavo.
The complainant and his newspaper considered that, even though no name had been mentioned in the press release, the accusation of bribery had to be understood as directed at them.
Pritožnik in njegov Ïasopis sta menila, da je treba obtožbo o podkupnini razumeti kot naperjeno proti njima, Ïeprav v sporoÏilu za javnost ni bilo omenjeno nobeno ime.
According to the complainant, this accusation was unfounded.
Po pritožnikovem mnenju je bila obtožba neutemeljena.
When OLAF refused to withdraw the press release, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman (case 1840/2002/GG).
Ker OLAF ni hotel umakniti izjave za javnost, je pritožnik vložil pritožbo pri varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic (primer 1840/2002/GG).
Furthermore, it suggested that “the reference could also be to any other journalist, since OLAF did not state that the investigation was linked to any specific material which had already been published”.
V varuhovi preiskavi o pritožbi je OLAF zavrnil pritožnikove obtožbe in navedel vrsto razlogov kot dokaz, da navedek „neki novinar“ lahko pomeni kateregakoli novinarja, ki je objavil Ïlanek in namigoval, da ima zadevne dokumente.
The Ombudsman therefore addressed a draW recommendation to OLAF inviting it to withdraw the allegation of bribery.
Poleg tega se je branil, da se navedek
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH lahko nanaša na kateregakoli novinarja, saj OLAF ni izjavil, da je preiskava povezana s posebnim, že objavljenim gradivom.
Subsequently, the Belgian prosecutor’s oU ce carried out a search of the complainant’s oU ce and home in Brussels, seizing a great number of documents.
Pozneje je urad belg`skega državnega tožilca preiskal pritožnikovo pisarno in domaÏe bivališÏe v Bruslju ter zasegel veliko dokumentov.
It emerged that these measures of inquiry had been based on information that OLAF had forwarded to the Belgian and German authorities.
Izkazalo se je, da so ti preiskovalni ukrepi temeljili na informac`ah, ki jih je belg`skim in nemškim oblastem posredoval OLAF.
The complainant lodged a new complaint with the Ombudsman, submiming copies of OLAF’s lemers to the authorities, which, according to him, showed that OLAF had provided incorrect information in the context of case 1840/2002/GG that was likely to mislead the Ombudsman and to manipulate the inquiry.
Pritožnik je pri varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic vložil novo pritožbo in predložil kop` e pisem OLAF-a oblastem, ki so po njegovem mnenju dokazovale, da je OLAF v primeru 1840/2002/GG posredoval napaÏne informac`e, ki bi verjetno zavedle varuha in vplivale na preiskavo.
OLAF submimed that its statements had been fully accurate and not misleading.
OLAF je odgovoril, da so bile izjave popolnoma toÏne, in ne zavajajoÏe.
The Ombudsman examined four statements or groups of statements that the complainant considered to be wrong or misleading and came to the conclusion that OLAF had indeed provided incorrect or misleading information in all four instances.
Varuh je preuÏil štiri izjave oziroma sklope izjav, ki so bile po pritožnikovem mnenju napaÏne ali zavajajoÏe, ter ugotovil, da je OLAF v resnici posredoval napaÏne ali zavajajoÏe informac` e v vseh štirih primerih.
The Ombudsman therefore addressed a draW recommendation to OLAF, asking it to acknowledge that it had made incorrect and misleading statements in its submissions to the Ombudsman concerning case 1840/2002/GG.
Zato je na OLAF naslovil osnutek priporoÏila in zahteval, naj prizna, da je v odgovorih varuhu v primeru 1840/2002/GG podal napaÏne in zavajajoÏe izjave.
AWer examining OLAF’s detailed opinion, the Ombudsman considered that OLAF had in eT ect refused to accept his draW recommendation.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je preuÏil podrobno mnenje OLAF-a in ugotovil, da je urad dejansko zavrnil njegov osnutek poroÏila.
He therefore addressed a special report to the European Parliament in which he restated his draW recommendation as a recommendation.
Zato je Evropskemu parlamentu predložil posebno poroÏilo, kjer je osnutek priporoÏila ponovno navedel kot priporoÏilo.
OWN-INITIATIVEINQUIRY BY THE OMBUDSMAN
PREISKAVE NALASTNOPOBUDO VARUHA JLOVEKOVIH PRAVIC
Summary of decision on own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2005/OV (Confidential) concerning the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o preiskavi na lastno pobudo OI/3/2005/OV (zaupno) glede Evropske komis` e
In April 2005, the Ombudsman received a complaint from a florist in a non-EU country concerning an alleged failure of the Commission Delegation in that country (“the Delegation”) to reimburse the complainant for the floral decoration that he had provided for the Delegation’s newly opened Press Centre.
Aprila 2005 je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic prejel pritožbo cvetliÏarja v državi, ki ni Ïlanica EU; trdil je, da mu delegac`a Komis` e v tej državi (v nadaljevanju delegac`a) ni plaÏala cvetliÏnih aranžmajev, dobavljenih za njeno novo tiskovno središÏe. Pritožnik je trdil, da bi morala Komis` a spoštovati ustni dogovor v tej zadevi in mu opravljeno storitev plaÏati.
The Ombudsman could not open an inquiry into the complaint as such, because the complainant was not an EU citizen and did not have his residence in an EU Member State (Article 195 of the EC Treaty).
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ni mogel uvesti preiskave kot take, ker pritožnik ni državljan EU in nima bivališÏa v državi Ïlanici EU (Ïlen 195 Pogodbe ES).
However, given that the issue raised merited examination, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry against the Commission into the mamer. er.
Ker je bilo zadevo treba preuÏiti, je proti Komis` i sklenil zaÏeti preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
The Commission explained that it had put the premises of the Delegation’s Press and Information centre at the disposal of the Italian embassy and an associated foundation for an event and that the f l oral decoration had been supplied in that context.
Komis` a je pojasnila, da je za ta dogodek prostore tiskovnega in informac`skega središÏa delegac`e dala na voljo ital`anskemu veleposlaništvu in z njim povezani ustanovi ter da so ti poskrbeli za cvetliÏne aranžmaje. Pritožnik je pogodbo o dobavi cvetliÏnih aranžmajev sklenil z ital`anskim veleposlaništvom in ustanovo.
No contract was established between the Delegation and the complainant.
Med delegac`o in pritožnikom ni bila sklenjena nobena pogodba.
The Ombudsman concluded that there indeed existed no contract between the Commission and the complainant with regard to the floral decoration and that this conclusion was not altered by the fact that the decoration itself was provided on the Delegation’s premises.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ugotovil, da med Komis` o in pritožnikom res ni bila sklenjena nobena pogodba o cvetliÏnih aranžmajih, Ïesar ne spremeni niti dejstvo, da so bili aranžmaji dobavljeni v prostore delegac`e.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the complainant’s claim for payment against the Commission could not be upheld and that there was no instance of maladministration.
Zato je zakljuÏil, da ni mogoÏe podpreti pritožnikove zahteve Komis` i za plaÏilo in da tukaj ne gre za nepravilnost.
The complainant responded to the Ombudsman by stating that his decision was correct and could help him resolve his complaint.
Eden od razlogov za pritožnikove težave je bil oÏitno tudi ta, da je pristojna oseba zapustila ital`ansko veleposlaništvo, zato je varuh poslal kop` o svoje odloÏbe ital`anskemu veleposlaništvu v državi, kjer je delegac`a. a.
Constructive working relations between the European Ombudsman and the EU institutions and bodies are vital in ensuring that citizens’ complaints are dealt with promptly and eTectively.
Ustvarjalni delovni odnosi med Evropskim varuhom Ïlovekovih pravic ter instituc`ami in organi Evropske un`e so bistvenega pomena za zagotavljanje hitre in uÏinkovite obravnave pritožb državljanov.
The Ombudsman uses the opportunities oTered by meetings with Members of the institutions and bodies and their oUcials to explain the thinking behind his work, how best to respond to complaints that he brings to their amention and how to improve procedures.
Za varuha so sreÏanja s Ïlani in uradniki instituc` ter organov odliÏna priložnost, da predstavi, kako razmišlja pri svojem delu, kako se najbolje odzvati na pritožbe, na katere jih opozarja, in kako izboljšati postopke.