natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Although the complainant faxed on 30 October 1997 a dra agreement aimed at governing CTFC’s working relationship with forestry owners, the document was never formally submi ed for approval to the Commission, as required by the Decision.
Na podlagi informacij , ki jih je pritožnik posredoval 8. februarja 2001, je Komisij a znižala zahtevo po vrnitvi stroškov na 30.429 evrov in 6. marca 2001 izdala nalog za izterjavo. Postopek, ki so ga v tej zadevi izvedle njene službe, je bil po mnenju Komisij e v skladu s členom 7 priloge 2 k Odločbi.
In February 1999, and upon the submission of his intermediate report, the complainant expressed his wish to include the costs incurred by third party forestry owners within the project’s budget.
Pritožnik je 4. aprila 2001 imel sestanek s Komisijo.
The Commission stated that its services made it clear to the complainant that this possibility demanded both a prior amendment of the Decision and the Commission’s approval of the new relationship.
Ker ni uspel predložiti nobenih dodatnih dokazov, je Komisij a potrdila predhodno stališče z dne 26. aprila 2001.
At this occasion, the complainant was also reminded that any such change could not alter the financial conditions of LIFE assistance as defined in Arts. 2 and 3 of the Decision’s Annex 2.
Končna zahteva Komisij e za povračilo je bila izdana 30. avgusta 2001 in se je nanašala na pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo pritožniku.
The final report was received on 19 May 2000.
V svojih pripombah z dne 30. julij a 2002 je pritožnik ponovil trditve iz svoje pritožbe.
Even though the aims of the project had been a ained, its budget structure and contents, in particular as involved the costs incurred by forestry owners, did not respect the conditions set out in the Decision.
Poudaril je, da se je s službami Komisij e temeljito pogovoril tako glede njegovega razmerja do lastnikov gozdov, kot tudi glede ocene s tem v zvezi nastalih stroškov
The Commission stated that the complainant had been unable to show that expenses incurred by third party forestry owners (147.867 €) had been in fact disbursed, as required by Arts 3 (4) and 4 (1) of the Decision.
Pritožnik je pojasnil, da je potreba, da lastniki gozdov sodelujejo v projektu, izhajala iz treh različnih poglavij začetnega predloga CTFC in sicer iz oddelka A13/4 (oddelek o pogozdovanju v povzetku
Commission stressed that the provisions of Art. 3 (3) of the Decision are clear and unconditional.
Sklepi preiskav projekta), iz oddelka A14/7 (gojenje rastlin) in iz različnih gospodarskih oddelkov (A5, A6, A9 in A11).
On 25 October 2000, the Commission requested additional information, which was forwarded by the complainant on 13 November 2000.
Za pogajanja ki so se s pristojnimi službami Komisij e odvijala od julij a 1997, je pritožnik dejal, da so v proračunu projekta odražala stroške, nastale s strani lastnikov gozdov kot tretjo stranko.
The Commission considered that the new information did not add any new element, and thus gave notice to the complainant by fax dated 30 January 2001 that the amount of assistance corresponding to these expenses would not be paid, and accordingly that part of the grant already paid (37.040 €) would have to be reimbursed.
Upoštevana sta bila dva modela: na podlagi prvega modela bi bili lastniki gozdov plačani za določene naloge neposredno, drugi model pa je upošteval določbe individualnih pogodb. V sporazumu s pristojnimi službami Komisij e je bilo dogovorjeno, da se odločijo za drugo možnost, na podlagi katere denarni tok ne bi bil razviden.
The institution granted the complainant a short period to have his views heard.
To dejstvo sta ilustrirala faksa, poslana 30. oktobra 1997 in 4. novembra 1997.
On the basis of the information forwarded by the complainant on 8 February 2001, the Commission reduced the request for reimbursement to an amount of 30.429 €, and issued the recovery order on 6 March 2001.
Pritožnik je poudaril, da je bila finančna struktura vmesnega poročila, še posebej metoda knjiženja stroškov tretjih oseb, spremenjena zaradi predlogov Komisije. e.
The Commission considered that the procedure followed by its services in this process was consistent with the criteria laid down in Art 7 of Annex 2 of the Decision.
Pritožnik je 16., 22., 29., 30. in 31. oktobra 2002 posredoval dodatno informacij o v zvezi s srečanji z uradniki komisije, ki so po njegovem mnenju podpirali njegove trditve.
Since he was unable to provide any further evidence, the Commission confirmed its previous stand on 26 April 2001.
Ob upoštevanju pritožnikovih pripomb je Varuh 31. oktobra 2002 pisal Komisij i.
The Commission’s final request for reimbursement was issued on 30 August 2001, and referred to the means of appeal available to the complainant.
V tem pismu je opozoril na dejstva, ki jih je pritožnik navedel v pripombah in ki podpirajo njegove trditve ter pozval Komisij o za pojasnila.
The complainant’s observations
Drugo mnenje Komisij e
In his observations of 30 July 2002, the complainant repeated the allegations made in his complaint.
Komisij a je zatrjevala, da pritožnikove navedbe ne dodajo primeru nič novega.
He stressed that the relationship with forestry owners as well as the accounting of the related expenses had been thoroughly discussed with the Commission services.
Institucij a je poudarila, da njene službe niso dale nobenih navodil v zvezi s spremembo finančnih pravil v pogodbi. Pojasnila je, da pritožnik ni predložil dokazov, da je uradnik Komisij e v zvezi s projektom dal navodila, tako kot to zatrjuje pritožnik.
He described the negotiations which, since July 1997, had taken place with the responsible Commission services to reflect the costs incurred by third party forestry owners into the project’s budget.
Komisij a je opozorila na faksa, ki ju je pritožnik poslal njenim službam 30. oktobra in 4. novembra 1997, v katerih je predlagal prilagoditve finančni konvencij i.
In agreement with the responsible Commission services it was decided to opt for the second option in which no cash flows were to be reflected.
Poudarila je, da ti sporočili nista imeli posledic za pogodbena razmerja in sta bili posredovani kot informacij a.
The faxes sent on 30 October 1997 and on 4 November 1997 illustrated this fact.
Kljub temu, da je bil pritožnik seznanjen, da mora pri Komisij i vložiti uradno zahtevo, tega ni storil.
The complainant underlined that the financial structure of the intermediate report, in particular the methodology for the accounting of third party expenses, had been changed in response to the suggestions made by the Commission.
Ob upoštevanju teh dejstev Komisij a meni, da pritožnik ni imel druge možnosti kot spoštovati vsa določila pogodbe.
On 16, 22, 29, 30 and 31 October 2002, the complainant forwarded additional information concerning meetings held with Commission officials which, in his view, supported his allegations.
Pritožnik bi glede na to moral vedeti, da se vsa finančna preverjanja izvedejo v sklepni fazi projekta. Zato bi ne smel domnevati, da je vmesno plačilo Komisij e pomenilo tudi odobritev finančnih sprememb.
In view of the observations submi ed by the complainant, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission on 31 October 2002.
Zato se je Komisij a odločila, da bo začela z nalogom za izterjavo 30.429 evrov, kot to določa člen 3.3c Odločbe o nepovratnih sredstvih.
In his le er, the Ombudsman referred to the factual details described in the complainant’s observations, which appeared to support his allegations, and requested the Commission to comment on these ma ers.
Če pritožnik ne bo predložil dokazov, bo Komisij a nadaljevala z izvedbo naloga za izterjavo.
The Commission’s second opinion
Pripombe pritožnika in drugo mnenje Komisij e
The Commission argued that the observations made by the complainant did not add any new element to the case.
V svojih pripombah glede drugega stališča Komisij e z dne 20. marca 2002 in 10. januarja 2003, je pritožnik vztrajal, da format finančnega dela njegovega poročila izhaja iz predloga služb Komisije, ki kasneje ni izrazila formalnega nesoglasja.
The institution stressed that no instructions had been given by its services involving the amendment of the financial rules governing the contract.
Čeprav pritožnik ni mogel predložiti pisnih dokazov, se je skliceval na številne uradne izjave udeležencev v projektu, ki so potrjevale njegovo stališče.
It explained that the complainant had never submi ed any evidence to demonstrate that a Commission official made
Pritožnik je izrazil pripravljenost pričati pred Varuhom, če bi bilo to potrebno
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
Sklepi preiskav
The complainant enclosed different documents, which showed that the Commission had accepted, at least as regards LIFE project 97/ENV/E/260, the use of bilateral agreements between the beneficiary and several subcontractors in which no cash flows took place.
Pritožnik je predložil različne dokumente, ki prikazujejo, da je Komisij a (vsaj kar zadeva LIFE projekt 97/ENV/260) sprejela uporabo dvostranskih sporazumov med upravičencem in podizvajalci, kjer ni bilo denarnega toka.
He requested the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure, in order to ensure that a fair solution should be reached and that CTFC is not unjustly penalised.
Zahteval je, da Varuh nadzoruje postopek, da se zagotovi poštena rešitev in da CTFC ni neupravičeno kaznovan.
A itude of the responsible Commission’s services towards the complainant
Odnos odgovornih služb Komisij e do pritožnika
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission services misled him and did not provide the necessary assistance.
1.1 Pritožnik navaja, da so ga službe Komisij e zavedle in mu niso nudile potrebne pomoči.
He argues that the relationship with forestry owners as well as the accounting of the related expenses had been thoroughly discussed with the Commission services.
Dokazoval je, da se je s službami Komisij e temeljito pogovoril tako glede njegovega razmerja do lastnikov gozdov, kot tudi glede ocene s tem v zvezi nastalih stroškov.
1.2 The Commission argues that its services could not possibly have induced the complainant to believe he could disregard the rules of the project.
1.2 Komisij a zatrjuje, da njene službe niso odgovorne za prepričanje pritožnika, da lahko kršiti pravila projekta.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has submi ed a large amount of documentary evidence, which reflects his continuous exchanges with the responsible Commission services.
Nadalje Komisij a zatrjuje, da pritožnik ni predložil dokazov, da so uradniki Komisij e dali zatrjevana navodila v zvezi s projektom in, da takšnih navodil ni v njenih spisih.
Having reviewed these documents, it appears that the responsible officials were well aware of the complainant’s work, and therefore should have known of the financial criteria being used to account for the work of subcontractors.
1.3 Varuh navaja, da je pritožnik posredoval veliko dokumentarnega gradiva, ki odraža nenehno izmenjavo s pristojnimi službami Komisije. Po pregledu teh dokumentov je očitno, da so pristojni uradniki vedeli za delo pritožnika in bi zatorej morali poznati finančne kriterije, uporabljene za obračun dela podizvajalcev.
However, the Ombudsman is of the view that there appears to be no direct evidence, which could lead to the conclusion that the Commission misled the complainant.
Kljub temu je Varuh mnenja, da ni neposrednih dokazov za zaključek, da je Komisij a pritožnika zavedla.
The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there is no maladministration by the Commission as regards this aspect of the case.
Varuh v ravnanju Komisij e v tem delu pritožbe tako ne ugotavlja nepravilnosti.
The Commission’s procedure for the reimbursement of part of the assistance
Postopek Komisij e za povračilo dela pomoči
2.1 The complainant alleges that the procedure followed by the Commission for the handling of his project was unclear and did not comply with the applicable rules.
2.1 Pritožnik navaja, da postopek Komisije, kar zadeva njegov projekt, ni bil jasen in v skladu s predpisi.
He argues that his rights of defence has not been respected and that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of part of the assistance did not allow for a hearing as foreseen in Art. 11 (2) of Regulation 1973/92 regarding the LIFE programme.
Trdi, da njegova pravica do obrambe ni bila spoštovana in da zahteva Komisij e za povrnitev dela pomoči ni dovolila zaslišanja, kot to določa člen 11(2) Uredbe 1973/92 o programu LIFE.
2.2 The Commission argues that the procedure followed by its services in this process was consistent with the applicable rules (Art 7 of Annex 2 of the decision granting financial assistance to the project [the Decision]).
2.2 Komisij a meni, da je bil postopek, ki so ga izvedle njene službe v tej zadevi v skladu s predpisi (člen 7 priloga 2 Odločbe za zagotovitev finančne pomoči projektu [Odločbe].
It explained that its first request of 30 January 2001 allowed the complainant to have his views heard before a final decision was to be adopted, and also that its final request of 30 August 2001 included information on the means of appeal.
Pojasnila je, da je imel pritožnik na podlagi njene prve zahteve 30. januarja 2001 možnost pojasniti svoja stališča pred sprejetjem končne odločitve in, da je tudi druga zahteva z dne 30. avgusta 2001 vsebovala pouk o pravnih sredstvih.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the rules governing the implementation of projects financed through the LIFE programme are set out in Council Regulation 1973/9210, as well as in each
2.3 Varuh navaja, da so pravila za izvajanje projektov, financiranih s pomočjo programa LIFE določena v Uredbi Sveta 1973/9210, kakor tudi v vsaki odločbi Komisije, ki zagotavlja pomoč individualnim projektom.
The procedure to be followed by the Commission in cases of undue payment is laid down in Art. 11 (2) of Regulation 1973/92, which reads as follows,
Postopek, ki ga izvede Komisij a v primerih prekomernega plačila, je določen v členu 11 (2) Uredbe 1973/92, ki se glasi:
“ [...] if only part of the allocated financial assistance is justified by the progress in implementation of an action, the Commission shall request the beneficiary to submit its observations within a specified period.
“... če roki niso bili upoštevani ali če napredovanje pri izvedbi projekta upravičuje le del dodeljene finančne pomoči, Komisij a zahteva od upravičenca, da v posebej določenem roku predloži svoje stališče.
If the beneficiary does not give a satisfactory answer, the Commission may cancel the remaining financial assistance and demand repayment of sums already paid.”
Če upravičenec ne poda zadovoljivega odgovora, lahko Komisij a odpove preostalo finančno pomoč in zahteva povrnitev že plačanih sredstev.”
Art. 7 of Annex 2 of the Decision reproduces identical procedural requirements.
Člen 7 priloge 2 Odločbe vsebuje enake postopkovne zahteve.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 of 21 May 1992 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE); OJ L 206, 22/07/1992 p.1.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 1973/92 z dne 21. maja 1992 o finančnih instrumentih za okolje (LIFE), UL L 206, 22/07/1992, str. 1.
3.2 In its first opinion, the Commission justified its request for reimbursement on the grounds that the complainant never formally submi ed a request for an amendment to the Decision in order to allow third party property owners to participate in the project.
2.4 Varuh prav tako meni, da je v zadnjem odstavku prve zahteve Komisij e po povračilu stroškov z dne 30. januarja 2001 navedeno, da bo sporočilo posredovano v predhodno odobritev finančnemu revizorju najkasneje 9. februarja 2001, da bi tako pritožnik lahko poslal svoja stališča, kot predvideva člen 11(2) Uredbe LIFE. Končni bremenopis je bil pritožniku poslan 6. marca 2001.
The institution pointed out that the complainant had not been able to show that the expenses incurred by third party forestry owners had in fact been disbursed.
Kljub temu, da sporočilo ni omenjalo možnih pravnih sredstev, je Komisij a 30. avgusta 2001 opozorila na ta sredstva v nadaljnji korespondenci s pritožnikom.
3.3 As regards the participation of third party property owners, the Ombudsman notes that the technical description of the project, included in the beneficiary’s proposal, foresaw their cooperation.
2.5 Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega Varuh meni, da Komisij a ni posegla v pravico do obrambe pritožnika, ko je izdala zahtevo za povrnitev dela pomoči.
On 30 October and 4 November 1997, the complainant formally notified the Commission services of the forthcoming participation of third party forestry owners in the implementation of the project.
V teh okoliščinah je Varuh mnenja, da postopek Komisij e za izvedbo tega projekta ni bil nejasen in, da je institucij a torej upoštevala pravila.
The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has not provided any proof that its services raised any objections to the complainant’s initiative.
Varuh zato v tem delu pritožbe glede ravnanja Komisij e ne ugotavlja nepravilnosti.
In relation to the accounting of expenses incurred by these third parties, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission did not appear to be entirely unaware of the criteria used by the complainant,
3.1 Pritožnik trdi, da bi morala Komisij a zadržati zahtevo za povračilo stroškov in izplačati zadnje plačilo za projekt, kakor tudi pripadajoče obresti.
Ombudsman takes notice of the fact that the accounting scheme used by the complainant in his fi final report followed the past ern of the intermediate report.
3.3 Kar zadeva udeležbo lastnikov zemljišč kot tretje osebe, Varuh meni, da je tehnični opis projekta, vsebovan v predlogu upravičenca, predvidel njihovo sodelovanje.
Upon the receipt of the intermediate report, not only did the Commission fail to object to its contents, but also proceeded with the midterm payment.
Pritožnik je 30. oktobra in 4. novembra 1997 službe Komisij e formalno obvestil o prihodnji udeležbi lastnikov gozdov kot tretji osebi v izvedbi projekta.
By so doing, and as set out in Art. 3 (2) of the Decision’s Annex 2, the Commission seemingly accepted the contents of the financial statement and the midterm report submi ed by the beneficiary12. ciary12.
Varuh meni, da Komisij a ni priskrbela nikakršnih dokazov, da so njene službe ugovarjale predlogu pritožnika.
3.4 In its reply to the Ombudsman’s further inquiries, the Commission underlined its willingness to consider paying the costs claimed by the complainant, and thus to halt its recovery order, provided that he submit evidence that costs incurred by third party property owners were effectively incurred.
3.4 V odgovoru na nadaljnje preiskave Varuha je Komisij a poudarila svojo pripravljenost razmisliti o plačilu stroškov, ki jih zahteva pritožnik in tako ustaviti nalog za izterjavo, pod pogojem, da predloži dokaze, da so dejansko nastali stroški lastnikov gozdov kot tretje osebe.
In his latest observations, the complainant has expressed his readiness to reformulate the financial section of the project in line with the Commission’s requests, and has asked the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure in order to ensure a fair solution.
V zadnjih pripombah je pritožnik izrazil pripravljenost preoblikovati finančni del projekta v skladu z zahtevo Komisij e in je prosil Varuha, da nadzoruje postopek, da se tako zagotovi poštena rešitev.
In view of this situation, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to inquire further into this aspect of the case.
Glede na to Varuh meni, da ni razlogov za nadaljnjo preiskavo tega vidika primera.
3.5 The complainant has asked the Ombudsman to supervise the procedure.
Pritožnik je Varuha zaprosil, da nadzoruje postopek.
The Ombudsman points out that, under Community financial procedures, the Commission is responsible for administration of the contract in question.
Varuh poudarja, da je v skladu z f i finančnimi postopki Skupnosti za upravljanje zadevne pogodbe odgovorna Komisij a.
The complainant has the possibility, however, to make a new complaint to the Ombudsman in future, if he should consider it necessary to do so.
Pritožnik ima kljub temu možnost, da se v prihodnosti ponovno pritoži pri Varuhu, če meni, da je to potrebno.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman’s inquires into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ugotavlja, da Evropska komisij a ni ravnala nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
The text of the fax sent by the complainant to the Commission official in charge of the financial aspects of the project dated 30 October 1997 is particularly illustrative:
Besedilo faksa, ki ga je pritožnik 30. oktobra 1997 poslal uradniku Komisije, pristojnemu za finančne zadeve projekta, je še posebej nazorno.
“Dear J., As we agreed last July, please find enclosed a proposed “agreement” in order to account for the contribution to project LIFE’ 96 ENV/E/512 of forestry owners, both in terms of time and resources.
Dragi J., kot smo se dogovorili prejšnjega julij a, prilagam predlagani »sporazum«, zato da bi utemeljil časovni in materialni prispevek lastnikov gozdov k projektu LIFE ’96 ENV/E/512.
I would appreciate if you could inform us about the type of documentary evidence, if necessary, we should keep, and the constraints, if any, we should be aware of. [...]”
Veliko bi mi pomenilo, če bi nas obvestil o vrsti dokumentarnega gradiva, ki naj ga shranimo, če je to potrebno in morebitnih pritiskov, ki naj se jih zavedamo. [...]«
“[...] an intermediate payment shall be made once the Commission accepts the financial statement and the corresponding report submi ed by the beneficiary [...]”.
«... vmesno plačilo se izvrši, ko Komisij a sprejme finančno izjavo in ustrezno poročilo, ki ga je predložil upravičenec ...».
ANNULMENT OF QUESTIONS AND ALLEGED FAILURE TO RESPECT COMPETITION NOTICE
RAZVELJAVITEV VPRAŠANJ IN ZATRJEVANO NEUPOŠTEVANJE OBJAVE RAZPISA
Decision on complaint 647/2002/OV against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 647/2002/OV zoper Evropsko komisij o
According to the complainant the relevant facts were as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
The complainant participated in open competition COM/A/6/01 but did not pass preselection test b) where he obtained only 16.842/40.
Pritožnik je sodeloval na javnem natečaju COM/A/6/01, vendar ni opravil predizbirnih testov b), kjer je imel 16.842 točk od možnih 40.
The complainant made 2 appeals to the Selection Board, on 10 January 2002 in order to ask the re-examination of test b), and on 11 February 2002 in order to contest the correction method.
Pritožnik se je pri izbirni komisij i dvakrat pritožil: 10. januarja 2002, da bi ponovno pregledali test b) in 11. februarja 2002 zaradi spodbijanja metode ocenjevanja.
The Selection Board decided to annul three questions of the preselection test.
Izbirna komisij a se je odločila razveljaviti tri vprašanja predizbirnih testov.
The complainant contested this, but the Selection Board replied that the questions were annulled for everybody and that the principle of equality had thus been respected.
Pritožnik je temu ugovarjal, vendar je Izbirna komisij a odgovorila, da so bila vprašanja razveljavljena za vse, tako je bilo tudi spoštovano načelo enakosti.
Further to the appeal, the Selection Board sent to the complainant a copy of the multiple choice questions list with the right answers and the complainant’s answers.
Poleg tega je Izbirna komisij a pritožniku poslala kopij o seznama vprašanj z možnostjo izbire, skupaj s pravilnimi odgovori ter odgovori pritožnika.
The complainant is of the opinion that 5 of his replies on test b) were also correct, and that therefore he would have obtained 22,105/40 instead of 16.842/40.
Pritožnik meni, da je bilo pet njegovih odgovorov pri testu ž) ravno tako pravilnih in da bi zato moral dobiti 22,105 od možnih 40 točk in ne 16,842.
As the Selection Board rejected the complainant’s appeals, he complained to the Ombudsman on 25 March 2002.
Ko je Izbirna komisij a zavrnila njegovo pritožbo, se je pritožnik 25. marca 2002 pritožil pri Varuhu. Podal je tri trditve: