natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
”As far as possible, the Ombudsman shall seek a solution with the institution or body concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complaint.”
„Če je mogoče, varuh človekovih pravic skupaj z vpleteno institucij o ali organom poišče rešitev za odpravo nepravilnosti in ugoditev pritožbi.“
”If the Ombudsman finds maladministration, as far as possible he cooperates with the institution concerned in seeking a friendly solution to eliminate it and to satisfy the complainant.”
„Če varuh človekovih pravic ugotovi nepravilnosti, najtesneje sodeluje z zadevno institucij o pri iskanju sporazumne rešitve za odpravo nepravilnosti in v zadoščenje pritožnika.“
Article 195 of the EC Treaty provides for the Ombudsman to “conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds”.
Člen 195 Pogodbe ES predvideva, da varuh človekovih pravic „opravi preiskave, za katere ima razloge“.
In some cases, there may not be su cient grounds for the Ombudsman to begin an inquiry, even though the complaint is admissible.
V nekaterih primerih varuh morda nima dovolj razlogov za začetek preiskave, čeprav je pritožba dopustna. V nadaljevanju so navedeni trije taki primeri.
The Ombudsman also takes the view that, if a complaint has already been dealt with as a petition by the Commi4 ee on Petitions of the European Parliament, there are normally no grounds for an inquiry by the Ombudsman, unless new evidence is presented.
Varuh človekovih pravic poleg tega meni, da razlogov za preiskavo po navadi ni, kadar je Odbor Evropskega parlamenta za peticije neko pritožbo že obravnaval kot peticijo, razen če se predložijo novi dokazi.
Overall, 42% of the admissible cases dealt with in 2007 were considered not to provide grounds for an inquiry.
V letu 2007 razlogi za preiskavo niso bili ugotovljeni pri 42 % obravnavanih dopustnih primerov.
Examples of complaints in which there were no grounds to start an inquiry
Primeri pritožb, pri katerih ni bilo razlogov za začetek preiskave
A Romanian citizen approached the European Commission alleging that a car registration tax imposed by the Romanian authorities infringes Community law.
Romunski državljan se je obrnil na Evropsko komisijo z obtožbo, da davek na registracijo avtomobilov, ki ga zaračunavajo romunski organi, krši zakonodajo Skupnosti.
In response, the Commission informed the complainant that it had opened an infringement procedure against Romania to ensure that there is no discrimination against imported used cars.
Komisija je pritožniku odgovorila, da je proti Romuniji sprožila postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev, da bi zagotovila, da ni diskriminacije uvoženih avtomobilov.
The Commission added that it had not asked Romania to abolish the tax altogether, since there is no legal basis in Community law for making such a claim.
Komisija je dodala, da od Romunije ni zahtevala, naj v celoti odpravi davek, ker za tak zahtevek ni pravne podlage v zakonodaji Skupnosti.
In reply to a further submission by the same citizen, the Commission stated that it was currently examining Romanian draft legislation, which is supposed to introduce the necessary amendments to the Romanian rules on car taxation in order to bring them in line with Article 90 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija je v odgovoru na dodatno vlogo tega državljana navedla, da trenutno preučuje osnutek romunske zakonodaje, s katerim naj bi bile uvedene spremembe romunskih predpisov o obdavčitvi avtomobilov, ki so potrebne za njihovo uskladitev s členom 90 Pogodbe ES.
In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission’s replies.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic izrazil nezadovoljstvo z odgovori Komisije.
He claimed that the Commission should require that the Romanian authorities abolish or reduce the car registration tax.
Trdil je, da bi morala Komisija zahtevati, naj romunski organi odpravijo ali zmanjšajo davek na registracijo avtomobilov.
In the spirit of good cooperation underlying the Statement adopted by the European Network of Ombudsmen (see Chapter 5) and taking into account that the complainant had also expressed dissatisfaction with the Romanian authorities, the European Ombudsman considered it useful to inform the Romanian Ombudsman of the complaint and of the ongoing infringement proceedings.
V duhu dobrega sodelovanja, na katerem temelji izjava, ki jo je sprejela Evropska mreža varuhov človekovih pravic (glej poglavje 5), in ob upoštevanju tega, da je pritožnik izrazil tudi nezadovoljstvo nad romunskimi organi, se je evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic zdelo koristno, da o pritožbi in tekočem postopku za ugotavljanje kršitev obvesti romunskega varuha človekovih pravic.
The European Ombudsman also informed the Commission of the above and suggested that the Romanian Ombudsman should be kept informed of further steps in the infringement procedure.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je o tem obvestil tudi Komisijo in predlagal, naj romunskega varuha človekovih pravic obveščajo o nadaljnjem poteku postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev.
The complainant alleged that the European Central Bank (ECB) was going to damage a building of historic value and that it had dealt with her correspondence concerning the matter in an arrogant and inconsiderate way.
Pritožnica je Evropsko centralno banko (ECB) obtožila, da namerava poškodovati zgradbo z zgodovinsko vrednostjo in da se je na njeno pismo v zvezi s to zadevo odzvala naduto in brezobzirno.
The complainant enclosed a copy of her letter to the ECB, but not the latter’s reply.
Pritožnica je priložila kopijo svojega pisma ECB, ne pa tudi njenega odgovora.
Having requested and obtained a copy of the ECB’s reply from the complainant, the Ombudsman noted that it explained that the ECB was not going to damage or destroy the building but maintain, restore and use it.
Potem ko je varuh človekovih pravic prejel kopijo odgovora ECB, za katero je zaprosil pritožnico, je ugotovil, da je ECB pojasnila, da zgradbe ne bo poškodovala ali uničila, ampak jo bo ohranila, obnovila in uporabljala.
Furthermore, the letter stated that the ECB attached great importance to clarification of the issues the complainant had raised and invited her to address any further questions to its experts.
ECB je poleg tega v pismu navedla, da je razjasnitev zadev, na katere jo je pritožnica opozorila, za banko zelo pomembna, ter državljanko pozvala, naj vsa dodatna vprašanja naslovi na njene strokovnjake. Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je bil odgovor ECB primeren in koristen ter da torej ni razlogov za preiskavo.
An Italian company complained to the Ombudsman about several aspects of the way in which the Commission had dealt with the company during an investigation of an alleged cartel in the aluminium uoride industry.
Italijanska družba se je varuhu človekovih pravic pritožila v zvezi z različnimi vidiki, kako je Komisija obravnavala to družbo med preiskavo domnevnega kartela v industriji aluminijevega fluorida.
Among other things, the company complained that the Commission had wrongly ignored its request for leniency when sending the Statement of Objections, failed to respect its rights of defence and forced it to disregard an order of the national judicial authorities by requiring it to return certain documents to the Commission.
Družba se je med drugim pritožila, da je Komisija ravnala nepravilno, ker ni upoštevala njene prošnje za ugodno obravnavo, ko je poslala obvestilo o nasprotovanju, ni spoštovala njenih pravic do obrambe in jo je prisilila, da ni upoštevala odločbe nacionalnih sodnih organov, ker je zahtevala, naj Komisiji vrne nekatere dokumente.
As regards the request for leniency, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission only makes a final decision on leniency when it closes the relevant inquiry.
V zvezi s prošnjo za ugodno obravnavo je varuh ugotovil, da Komisija sprejme dokončno odločitev o ugodni obravnavi šele, ko konča zadevno preiskavo.
By providing the complainant with information about the Commission’s view of the likelihood of leniency and by granting the complainant an extension of the deadline for submitting its observations on the Statement of Objections, the Commission had allowed the complainant to exercise its rights of defence.
Komisija je pritožniku omogočila uveljavljanje pravice do obrambe, ko mu je zagotovila informacije o svojem mnenju, kar zadeva verjetnost ugodne obravnave, in mu odobrila podaljšanje roka za predložitev pripomb o obvestilu o nasprotovanju.
As regards the return of documents, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission had supplied certain confidential documents to the complainant in error and that, in accordance with the relevant legislation, it was entitled, and even obliged, to seek their return.
Kar zadeva vrnitev dokumentov, je varuh ugotovil, da je Komisija pritožniku napačno poslala nekatere zaupne dokumente in je v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo upravičena in celo dolžna zahtevati njihovo vrnitev.
Although the Commission should take account of any obligations the company might have under Italian criminal law in relation to the documents, the complainant had not provided evidence that the Commission had failed to do so.
Čeprav bi morala Komisija upoštevati kakršne koli obveznosti v zvezi z dokumenti, ki bi jih družba lahko imela v skladu z italijanskim kazenskim pravom, pritožnik ni predložil dokazov, da Komisija tega ni storila.
The Ombudsman therefore considered that there were no grounds to open an inquiry.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato menil, da ni bilo razlogov za začetek preiskave.2118/2007/IP
During 2007, the Ombudsman received 39211 new complaints, compared to 39830 in 2006.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic prejel 3 211 novih pritožb v primerjavi s 3 830 leta 2006.
In accordance with established practice, all complaints that give rise to an inquiry are counted in the statistics produced by the Ombudsman.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso mora varuh človekovih pravic v statistične podatke vključiti vse pritožbe, za katere se sproži preiskava.
To avoid distortion, however, inadmissible mass complaints sent by e-mail, which o en number several thousand, are only counted separately in the statistics up to and including the eleventh complaint.
Da podatki ne bi bili zavajajoči, pa se nedopustne množične pritožbe, poslane po elektronski pošti, ki jih je pogosto po več tisoč, v statističnem prikazu štejejo posebej do vključno enajste pritožbe.
During 2007, the process of examining complaints to see if they are within the mandate, meet the criteria of admissibility, and provide grounds to open an inquiry was completed in 95% of cases.
V letu 2007 je bilo preverjanje, ali so pritožbe v okviru varuhovih pristojnosti, ali izpolnjujejo merila dopustnosti in ustrezajo pogojem za začetek preiskave, opravljeno v 95 % primerov.
Of all the complaints examined, just over 26% were within the mandate of the Ombudsman.
Od vseh preučenih pritožb jih je bilo malo več kot 26 % v pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic.
Of these, 518 met the criteria of admissibility but 215 did not provide grounds for an inquiry.
Od teh jih je 518 izpolnjevalo merila dopustnosti, vendar jih 215 ni izpolnjevalo pogojev za preiskavo.
A statistical analysis of these inquiries is provided in Annex A.
V Prilogi A je predstavljena statistična analiza teh preiskav.
Overall, the European Ombudsman dealt with a total of 641 inquiries in 2007, 332 of which were carried over from 2006.
Leta 2007 je evropski varuh človekovih pravic opravil skupno 641 preiskav, od katerih jih je bilo 332 prenesenih iz leta 2006.
As in previous years, most of the inquiries concerned the Commission (413, or 64% of the total).
Kot v preteklih letih je tudi tokrat večina preiskav (413 ali 64 % vseh) zadevala Komisijo.
There were 87 inquiries concerning the European Personnel Selection O ce (EPSO), 59 concerning the European Parliament, 22 concerning the European Anti-Fraud O ce, and 8 concerning the Council of the European Union.
87 preiskav je zadevalo Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO), 59 Evropski parlament, 22 Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam in osem Svet Evropske unije. e.
The main types of maladministration alleged were lack of transparency, including refusal of information (216 cases), unfairness or abuse of power (135 cases), unsatisfactory procedures (102 cases), avoidable delay (69 cases), discrimination (63 cases), negligence (62 cases), legal error (35 cases), and failure to ensure fulfilment of obligations, that is, failure by the European Commission to carry out its role as “guardian of the Treaty” vis-à-vis the Member States (24 cases).
V glavnem so se domnevne nepravilnosti nanašale na nepreglednost, vključno z zavračanjem dajanja informacij (216 primerov), nepravičnost ali zlorabo pooblastil (135 primerov), nezadovoljive postopke (102 primera), nepotrebne zamude (69 primerov), diskriminacijo (63 primerov), malomarnost (62 primerov), pravne napake (35 primerov) ter neizpolnjevanje obveznosti, in sicer neuspešnost Komisije pri opravljanju vloge „varuha Pogodbe“ v odnosu do držav članic (24 primerov).
If a complaint is outside the mandate, the Ombudsman tries to advise the complainant of another body that could deal with the complaint, especially if the case involves EU law.
Če varuh človekovih pravic ni pristojen za pritožbo, poskuša svetovati pritožniku, kateri organ bi jo lahko obravnaval, zlasti če primer zadeva zakonodajo Evropske unije.
If possible, and provided there appear to be grounds for the complaint, the Ombudsman, with the consent of the complainant, transfers it directly to another competent body.
Če je to mogoče in če se zdijo razlogi za pritožbo utemeljeni, varuh človekovih pravic s soglasjem pritožnika pritožbo neposredno preda drugemu pristojnemu organu.
As already noted, the European Ombudsman cooperates closely with his national and regional counterparts in the Member States through the European Network of Ombudsmen (see Chapter 5 below).
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, evropski varuh človekovih pravic tesno sodeluje z nacionalnimi in regionalnimi kolegi v državah članicah znotraj Evropske mreže varuhov človekovih pravic (glej poglavje 5).
One of the purposes of the Network is to facilitate the rapid transfer of complaints to the competent national or regional ombudsman or similar body.
Eden od namenov te mreže je omogočiti hitro posredovanje pritožb pristojnemu nacionalnemu ali regionalnemu varuhu človekovih pravic ali podobnemu organu.
The Commi4 ee on Petitions of the European Parliament also participates in the Network as a full member.
Odbor Evropskega parlamenta za peticije tudi sodeluje v mreži kot polnopravni član.
During 2007, 92 complaints were transferred.
Leta 2007 je bilo posredovanih 92 pritožb.
Of these, 51 were forwarded to a national or regional
Od teh jih je bilo 51 predanih nacionalnemu ali regionalnemu varuhu človekovih pravic, 20 Evropskemu parlamentu, da bi se obravnavale kot peticije, 12 mreži SOLVIT6
6, seven to ombudsman, 20 to the European Parliament to be dealt with as petitions, 12 to SOLVITthe European Commission and two to other bodies.
, sedem Evropski komisiji, dve pa drugim organom.
SOLVIT is a network set up by the European Commission to help people who face obstacles when trying to exercise their rights in the Union’s internal market.
SOLVIT je mreža, ki jo je Evropska komisija ustanovila za pomoč ljudem, ki se srečujejo s težavami pri uveljavljanju svojih pravic na notranjem trgu Unije. e.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
Primer je bil predan francoskemu varuhu človekovih pravic, ki je marca 2007 obvestil evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, da je primer rešen.
The complainant’s mother had worked in France and was now living in Brazil.The French state pension fund CRAM had suspended her pension payments in 2002 because of di culties with the Brazilian banking system.
Pritožnikova mati je pridobila domicil v brazilski banki, ki jo je odobril finančni organ, ki izplačuje pokojnine v imenu sklada CRAM.
The case was transferred to the French Ombudsman, who informed the European Ombudsman in March 2007 that a solution had been found.
Dne 5. februarja 2007 so bili dolgovani zneski povrnjeni pritožnikovi materi.
A Spanish citizen complained that the “Via Verde” system for discounted payment of Portuguese motorway tolls is not available to citizens of the EU who are not resident in Portugal.
Španski državljan se je pritožil, da sistem„Via Verde“ za plačevanje cestnin za portugalske avtoceste s popustom ni na voljo državljanom EU, ki nimajo stalnega prebivališča na Portugalskem.
Since the complaint concerned the national authorities, the European Ombudsman transferred it to the Portuguese Ombudsman.
Ker je pritožba zadevala nacionalne organe, jo je evropski varuh človekovih pravic predal portugalskemu varuhu človekovih pravic.
After conducting an inquiry, the Portuguese Ombudsman reported that the “Via Verde” system involves automatic deduction of tolls from the user’s bank account.
Portugalski varuh je po opravljeni preiskavi poročal, da sistem„Via Verde“ vključuje samodejno odbijanje cestnine z uporabnikovega bančnega računa.
To benefit from the system, the user must have an account with a bank belonging to the “Multibanco” network, which includes two Spanish banks.
Uporabnik mora imeti za uporabljanje tega sistema odprt račun pri banki iz mreže „Multibanco“, ki vključuje dve španski banki.
The Portuguese Ombudsman also noted that, although the limitations of the current system might be questioned on the basis of the principles of contractual freedom and competition in the banking sector, Directive 2004/52/EC on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems in the Community should create a uniform system of electronic road toll payment at the European level by 2011.
Portugalski varuh je ugotovil tudi, da bi lahko bile omejitve sedanjega sistema sicer vprašljive na podlagi načel pogodbene svobode in konkurence v bančnem sektorju, vendar pa naj bi se v skladu z Direktivo 2004/52/ES o interoperabilnosti elektronskih cestninskih sistemov v Skupnosti do leta 2011 vzpostavil enoten sistem elektronskega pobiranja cestnin na evropski ravni.
In light of the above, the Portuguese Ombudsman concluded that further inquires into the complaint were unnecessary and closed the case.
Portugalski varuh je glede na to sklenil, da nadaljnja preiskava pritožbe ni potrebna, in je zaključil primer.
A Finnish citizen residing in Sweden complained to the European Ombudsman that the Swedish Social Insurance Agency had incorrectly calculated his entitlement to sickness benefit. t.
Finski državljan, ki prebiva na Švedskem, se je evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic pritožil, da je švedska agencija za socialno zavarovanje nepravilno izračunala njegovo pravico do dajatve za bolezen.
Since the complaint was against a national authority, the European Ombudsman advised the complainant to turn to the Swedish Ombudsman.
Ker je šlo za pritožbo proti nacionalnemu organu, je evropski varuh človekovih pravic pritožniku svetoval, naj se obrne na švedskega varuha človekovih pravic.
The European Ombudsman also wrote to the Swedish Ombudsman to inform him that the complaint raised a question of the correct application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community.
Evropski varuh je švedskega varuha tudi pisno obvestil, da je pritožnik sprožil vprašanje v zvezi s pravilno uporabo Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 1408/71 z dne 14. junija 1971 o uporabi sistemov socialne varnosti za zaposlene osebe in njihove družinske člane, ki se gibljejo v Skupnosti.
A Czech citizen working in Ireland complained that the Irish tax authorities had detained his car, which was registered in the Czech Republic, because he had not paid the IrishVehicle Registration Tax.
Češki državljan, zaposlen na Irskem, se je pritožil, da so mu irski davčni organi zasegli avtomobil, ki je bil registriran v Češki republiki, ker ni plačal irskega davka za registracijo vozila. Pritožnik je trdil, da je ta davek enakovreden uvoznemu davku.
The European Ombudsman advised the complainant to address the Irish Ombudsman, whose services had confirmed that the complainant could write to them in the Czech language if he had di culties with English.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je pritožniku svetoval, naj se obrne na irskega varuha človekovih pravic, njegove službe pa so potrdile, da jim lahko pritožnik piše v češkem jeziku, če ima težave z angleščino.
The European Ombudsman also informed the complainant that, if the matter could not be resolved at the national level, he could consider making a complaint to the Commission.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je pritožnika obvestil tudi, da lahko razmisli o pritožbi Komisiji, če ta zadeva ne bo
7 the relevant case-law concerning taxation of imported used cars.
7 v zvezi z obdavčitvijo rešena na nacionalni ravni.
Case C-47/88 Commission v Denmark, [1990] ECR I-4509, paragraphs 10, 21 and 22.
Zadeva C-47/88 Komisija proti Danski [1990], Recueil I-4509, odstavki 10, 21 in 22.
Ongoing inquiry into actions of the Commission and the Portuguese authorities
Preiskava ukrepov Komisije in portugalskih organov, ki je v teku
In 2001, the complainant set up a nursery and breeding facility for bivalves in the harbour of Nazaré (central Portugal).
Pritožnik je leta 2001 odprl vzgajališče školjk v pristanišču Nazaré (osrednji del Portugalske).
After some months, the complainant noted a significant increase in the bivalves’mortality rate.
Po nekaj mesecih je pritožnik opazil, da se je bistveno povečala stopnja umrljivosti školjk.
Analysis of the water in the harbour indicated high levels of certain compounds, notably tributyltin, which are used in antifouling paints.
Analiza vode v pristanišču je pokazala visoko raven nekaterih snovi, predvsem tributiltina, ki se uporablja v barvah proti obraščanju.
According to the complainant, antifouling paints are still frequently used in Portugal to coat the hulls of ships and shing boats and are sold freely to shermen within the area of jurisdiction of the harbour’s authority, as well as other harbours of central Portugal.
Po pritožnikovih trditvah se barve proti obraščanju na Portugalskem še vedno pogosto uporabljajo za zaščito ladij in ribiških čolnov ter se prosto prodajajo ribičem na območju, ki je v pristojnosti pristaniškega organa, in v drugih pristaniščih osrednje Portugalske.
After having unsuccessfully referred the matter to the Portuguese authorities, the complainant submitted a complaint against Portugal to the Commission.
Pritožnik je po neuspešni predložitvi zadeve portugalskim organom vložil pritožbo proti Portugalski pri Komisiji.
According to the complainant, the Commission led the complaint without further action on the basis of the Portuguese authorities’ explanations that, in summary, the waters of the harbour of Nazaré were not considered suitable for shell-breeding.
Po pritožnikovih trditvah je Komisija vložila pritožbo brez nadaljnjih ukrepov na podlagi obrazložitve portugalskih organov, da vode v pristanišču Nazaré, če povzamemo, niso primerne za gojenje školjk.
According to the complainant, the authorisation he had obtained from the Portuguese authorities was for the production of shell seeds and the waters in which he had started production were suitable for that purpose.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je od portugalskih organov dobil dovoljenje za proizvodnjo mladic školjk, vode, v katerih jih je začel gojiti, pa so bile za to dejavnost primerne.
In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant expressed the view that it was obvious that the Portuguese authorities had provided the Commission with incorrect information.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic menil, da so portugalski organi Komisiji očitno predložili nepravilne informacije.
He alleged that the Commission had failed to provide him with adequate reasons as to why it considered the Portuguese authorities’ explanations to be satisfactory.
Trdil je, da mu Komisija ni ustrezno pojasnila, zakaj se ji je obrazložitev portugalskih organov zdela zadovoljiva.
The European Ombudsman asked the Commission to submit an opinion by 31 January 2008.
Evropski varuh je Komisijo zaprosil za predložitev mnenja do 31. januarja 2008.