natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For example, the Ombudsman has always considered that the political work of the European Parliament does not raise issues of possible maladministration.
Na primer, varuh človekovih pravic je vedno menil, da politično delovanje Evropskega parlamenta ne more sprožiti vprašanja glede morebitnih nepravilnosti.
Complaints against decisions of Committees of Parliament, such as the Committee on Petitions are, therefore, outside the Ombudsman's mandate.
Pritožbe zoper odločitve odborov Parlamenta, kot je Odbor za peticije, zato niso v pristojnosti varuha človekovih pravic.
Complaints against the political work of the European Parliament
Pritožbe zoper politično delovanje Evropskega parlamenta
In 2008, two Members of the European Parliament complained separately to the Ombudsman concerning penalties imposed on them following protests which took place in the plenary during the December 2007 part session of the European Parliament.
Dva poslanca Evropskega parlamenta sta se leta 2008 ločeno pritožila varuhu človekovih pravic zaradi kazni, ki so jima bile naložene po protestih leta 2007 v decembrskem delu plenarnega zasedanja Evropskega parlamenta.
The complainants contested:(i) the procedures laid down in Rules 147 (penalties) and 148 (internal appeals procedure) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure;(ii) the application of Rule 147 to the events that gave rise to the penalties.
Pritožnika sta izpodbijala:(i) postopke iz členov 147 (sankcije) in 148 (notranji postopki pritožbe) Poslovnika Evropskega parlamenta;(ii) uporabo člena 147 v zvezi z dogodki, zaradi katerih so jima bile naložene kazni.
According to the complainants, these events did not fall within Rule 147.
Po mnenju pritožnikov ti dogodki ne spadajo v okvir člena 147.
They also criticised the conduct of the President of Parliament during the plenary session in question;(iii) the validity of the decisions made by the Bureau of Parliament on appeals against the President's decision to impose penalties.The Ombudsman considered that the adoption of its Rules of Procedure and the conduct of plenary sessions are part of the political work of Parliament.
Kritizirala sta tudi ravnanje predsednika Parlamenta med zadevnim plenarnim zasedanjem;(iii) veljavnost odločitev kolegija predsednika Parlamenta o pritožbah zoper odločbe predsednika o naložitvi kazni.Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da sta sprejemanje Poslovnika in vodenje plenarnih zasedanj del političnega dela Parlamenta.
Furthermore, whilst certain kinds of decision by the Bureau are of an administrative nature, the Bureau acts as a political organ of Parliament when it hears an appeal against a decision of the President to impose a penalty.
Medtem ko so nekatere vrste odločitev kolegija predsednika upravne narave, kolegij predsednika deluje kot politični organ Parlamenta, kadar obravnava pritožbo zoper odločitev predsednika o naložitvi kazni.
The complaints did not, therefore, raise an issue of maladministration that could be dealt with by the Ombudsman.1156/2008/CHM and 1176/2008/WP 
Pritožbe torej niso nepravilnosti, ki bi jih lahko obravnaval varuh človekovih pravic.1156/2008/CHM in 1176/2008/WP 
The Charter of Fundamental Rights includes the right to good administration as a fundamental right of Union citizenship (Article 41).
Listina o temeljnih pravicah vključuje pravico do dobrega upravljanja kot temeljno pravico državljanstva Unije (člen 41). Pomembno je priznati, da je storitvena kultura za državljane sestavni del Pomembno je priznati, da je storitvena kultura zadobrega upravljanja.
zens forms an integral part of good administration. It should not be confused with a culture of blame that encourages defensiveness.
Ne smemo je zamenjevati s kulturo obtože-državljane sestavni del dobrega uprave.vanja, ki spodbuja obrambno reakcijo.
(In this context, it is worth noting that the Ombudsman's inquiries do not constitute a disciplinary or pre-disciplinary procedure.)The Ombudsman's strategy for promoting a service culture includes not only various proactive initiatives, but extends also to the handling of complaints.
(V zvezi s tem je treba omeniti, da preiskava varuha človekovih pravic ni disciplinski ali preddisciplinski postopek.)Strategija varuha človekovih pravic za spodbujanje storitvene kulture vključuje ne samo različne aktivne pobude, temveč zajema tudi obravnavanje pritožb.
An important part of a service culture is the need to acknowledge mistakes when they occur and to put matters right if possible.
Pomemben del storitvene kulture je potreba po tem, da se napake, kadar se pojavijo, priznajo in po možnosti popravijo.
A prompt apology may be all that is needed to satisfy the complainant, or at least to avoid the need for the Ombudsman to make any formal criticism of the institution concerned.
Pritožnik je lahko zadovoljen že, če hitro prejme opravičilo, ali pa to vsaj zadošča, da varuhu človekovih pravic na institucijo ni treba nasloviti uradne kritike.
Europol apologises in access to documents case
Europol se je opravičil v primeru v zvezi z dostopom do dokumentov
A Danish journalist complained to the Ombudsman, alleging that Europol had not properly implemented its new rules on access to documents in his case.
Danski novinar se je pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic in navedel, da Europol v njegovem primeru ni pravilno uporabljal svojih novih pravil o dostopu do dokumentov.
Europol apologised for whatever inconvenience its failure to reply within the stipulated timeframe may have caused, stating that it took full responsibility for the delay.
Europol se je opravičil za vse neprijetnosti, ki so se morda zgodile, ker ni odgovoril v določenem časovnem roku, in navedel, da prevzema polno odgovornost za zamudo.
Furthermore, it offered reassurances that future requests to Europol would be answered without delay. 111/2008/TS 
Poleg tega je Europol tudi zagotovil, da bo v prihodnje na prošnje odgovarjal brez zamude. 111/2008/TS 
In more complex cases in which the Ombudsman makes a preliminary finding of maladministra-
Varuh človekovih pravic v zapletenejših primerih, v katerih predhodno ugotovi nepravilnost,
The Ombudsman tries, if possible, to promote a "friendly solution" that will be acceptable both to the complainant and to the institution or body concerned.
Varuh človekovih pravic v zapletenejših primerih,v katerih predhodno ugotovi nepravilnost,poskusi spodbuditi „sporazumno rešitev“, ki bi bila sprejemljiva za pritožnika in zadevnoinstitucijo ali organ.
tion, he tries, if possible, to promote a "friendly solution" that will be acceptable both to the complainant and to the institution or body concerned.
poskusi spodbuditi „sporazumno rešitev“, ki bi bila sprejemljiva za pritožnika in zadevno institucijo ali organ.
It is important to note, however, that the relevant provisions of the Statute (Article 3.56) and the Implementing
Vendar pa je treba opozoriti, da se ustrezne določbe Statuta (člen 3(5)6) in izvedbene določbe (člen 6(1)7) uporabljajo samo, če se zdi, da se je zgodila nepravilnost, in če se zdi mogoče, da se ta odpravi.
6."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."7."If the Ombudsman finds maladministration, as far as possible he co-operates with the institution concerned in seeking a friendly solution to eliminate it and to satisfy the complainant."
6.„Če je mogoče, varuh človekovih pravic skupaj z vpleteno institucijo ali organom poišče rešitev za odpravo nepravilnosti in ugoditev pritožbi.“7.„Če varuh človekovih pravic ugotovi nepravilnosti, najtesneje sodeluje z zadevno institucijo pri iskanju sporazumne rešitve za odpravo nepravilnosti in v zadoščenje pritožnika.“
The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour
■■Evropski kodeks dobrega upravnega ravnanja
On 6 September 2001, the European Parliament approved a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which European Union institutions and bodies, their administrations and their officials should respect in their relations with the public.
Evropski parlament je 6. septembra 2001 potrdil Kodeks dobrega upravnega ravnanja, ki ga morajo institucije in organi Evropske unije, njihove uprave in njihovi uradniki spoštovati v stikih z javnostmi.
The Code takes account of the principles of European administrative law contained in the case-law of the European courts and draws inspiration from national laws.
V kodeksu so upoštevana načela evropskega upravnega prava iz sodne prakse evropskih sodišč, del pa se zgleduje po nacionalnem pravu držav članic.
The Ombudsman therefore takes account of the rules and principles contained in the Code when examining complaints and in conducting own-initiative inquiries.
Varuh tako pri preučevanju pritožb in opravljanju preiskav na lastno pobudo upošteva pravila in načela iz kodeksa.
The Ombudsman very much welcomed the confirmation by the Heads of the EU Agencies, at their meeting in Lisbon on 24 October 2008, that they all accept the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and would consider how best to publicise it (see section 4.1 below).
Varuh človekovih pravic je na srečanju z vodji agencij EU 24. oktobra 2008 v Lizboni toplo pozdravil njihovo potrditev, da vsi sprejemajo Evropski kodeks dobrega upravnega ravnanja in da bodo razmislili, kako ga najbolje oglaševati znotraj agencij (glej razdelek 4.1).
Admissibility and grounds for inquiries
Dopustnost in razlogi za preiskave
Before the Ombudsman can open an inquiry, a complaint must meet further criteria of admissibility.
Preden lahko varuh človekovih pravic začne preiskavo, mora pritožba izpolnjevati dodatna merila dopustnosti.
These criteria, as set out in the Statute, specify that:1. the author and the object of the complaint must be identified (Article 2(3) of the Statute);2. the Ombudsman may not intervene in cases before courts or question the soundness of a court's ruling (Article 1(3) of the Statute);3. the complaint must be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the complainant (Article 2(4) of the Statute);4. the complaint must have been preceded by appropriate administrative approaches to the institution or body concerned (Article 2(4) of the Statute); and5. in the case of complaints concerning work relationships between the institutions and bodies and their officials and servants, the possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaints must have been exhausted before lodging the complaint (Article 2(8) of the Statute).
Ta merila, opredeljena v Statutu, določajo:1. da morata biti razvidna avtor in predmet pritožbe (člen 2(3) Statuta);2. da varuh človekovih pravic ne sme posredovati v primerih pred sodišči ali dvomiti o pravilnosti odločitev sodišč (člen 1(3) Statuta);3. da je treba pritožbo vložiti v dveh letih od datuma, ko se je pritožnik seznanil z dejstvi, na katerih pritožba temelji (člen 2(4) Statuta);4. da so morala biti pred pritožbo že uporabljena ustrezna pravna sredstva pri zadevni instituciji ali organu (člen 2(4) Statuta); in5. da je treba pred vložitvijo pritožb v zvezi z delovnimi razmerji med institucijami in organi ter njihovimi uradniki in drugimi uslužbenci izkoristiti možnosti za vložitev notranjih upravnih vlog in pritožb (člen 2(8) Statuta).
Complaint in which prior administrative approaches were not made
Pritožbe, v katerih niso bili izvedeni predhodni upravni postopki
A complainant turned to the Ombudsman to report that regular border controls were being carried out by the Dutch authorities on the Dutch-German border in Vetschau.
Pritožnik se je obrnil na varuha človekovih pravic s prijavo, da danske oblasti izvajajo redne mejne kontrole na nemško-nizozemski meji v kraju Vetschau.
These controls regularly take place during rush hour, he said, resulting in traffic jams.
Navedel je, da te kontrole redno potekajo med prometnimi konicami, kar povzroča prometne zastoje.
He argued that the controls amount to a deliberate disregard of the Schengen agreements and alleged a lack of supervision in the Netherlands as far as the implementation of these agreements is concerned.
Navedel je, da nadzor pomeni namerno neupoštevanje schengenskih sporazumov, in trdil, da na Nizozemskem obstaja pomanjkanje nadzora v zvezi z izvajanjem teh sporazumov.
Given that the European Commission is the body responsible for supervising the implementation of the Schengen agreements, the complaint was understood as being directed against the Commission.In view of the fact that the complainant had apparently not yet contacted the Commission, the complaint was deemed inadmissible for lack of appropriate prior administrative approaches.
Glede na to, da je Evropska komisija organ, ki je odgovoren za nadzor nad izvajanjem schengenskih sporazumov, se je razumelo, da je pritožba vložena proti Komisiji.Glede na to, da pritožnik očitno še ni vzpostavil stika s Komisijo, se je štelo, da je pritožba nedopustna, ker niso bila uporabljena predhodna ustrezna upravna sredstva.
The complainant was informed that if, after having been contacted, the Commission failed to reply within a reasonable time or its response was not satisfactory, he could submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman.817/2008/BEH 
Varuh je pritožnika obvestil, da mu lahko predloži novo pritožbo, če Komisija po tem, ko se bo obrnil nanjo, ne bo odgovorila v razumnem času ali pa njen odgovor ne bo zadovoljiv.817/2008/BEH 
Article 195 EC provides for the Ombudsman to "conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds".
V členu 195 ES je določeno, da varuh človekovih pravic „poizvedbe, ki so po njegovem mnenju utemeljene“.
To avoid raising unjustified expectations among complainants and to ensure the best use of resources,
Da bi se izognili ustvarjanju neutemeljenih pričakovanj pri pritožnikih in zagotovili
To avoid raising unjustified expectations among complainants and to ensure the best use of resources, all admissible complaints are carefully studied to check if there is a reasonable prospect that an inquiry will lead to a useful result.
Da bi se izognili ustvarjanju neutemeljenihpričakovanj pri pritožnikih in zagotovili najboljšouporabo sredstev, se vse dopustne pritožbenatančno preučijo, zato da se ugotovi ali jemogoče razumno pričakovati, da bo preiskavaprivedla do uporabnega rezultata.
all admissible complaints are carefully studied to check if there is a reasonable prospect that an inquiry will lead to a useful result.
najboljšo uporabo sredstev, se vse dopustne pritožbe natančno preučijo, zato da se ugotovi ali je mogoče razumno pričakovati, da bo preiskava privedla do uporabnega rezultata.
If not, the Ombudsman closes the case as not providing sufficient grounds for an inquiry.
Če tega ni mogoče pričakovati, varuh človekovih pravic zaključi primer kot primer, ki ne daje zadostnih razlogov za preiskavo.
The Ombudsman also takes the view that, if a complaint has already been dealt with as a petition by the Committee 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 za peticije Evropskega parlamenta neko pritožbo že obravnaval kot peticijo, razen če se predložijo novi dokazi.
It is important to note that 44% of the admissible cases dealt with in 2008 were considered not to provide grounds for an inquiry.
Opozoriti je treba tudi na to, da v letu 2008 razlogi za preiskavo niso bili ugotovljeni v 44 % obravnavanih dopustnih primerov.
Complaint in which there were no grounds to start an inquiry
Pritožba, pri kateri ni bilo razlogov za začetek preiskave
A Greek citizen lodged a complaint about what he called the "unacceptable" behaviour of an individual working for the security company of the Commission Representation in Greece.
Grški državljan je vložil pritožbo zaradi po njegovih besedah „nesprejemljivega“ obnašanja posameznika, zaposlenega pri podjetju za varovanje predstavništva Komisije v Grčiji.
He asked for the employee's name, and also requested that all necessary mea- sures be taken to ensure that this employee would behave properly in the future and that it be made clear to him that his behaviour had created a very negative impression of the Commission's services.
Zahteval je ime zaposlenega in sprejetje vseh potrebnih ukrepov za zagotovitev, da se bo ta zaposleni v prihodnje primerno obnašal, in naj se mu pojasni, da je njegovo obnašanje ustvarilo zelo negativen vtis o službah Komisije.
The Representation responded to the complainant, apologising for the behaviour of the said employee, offering to help the complainant with his initial request, and expressing a wish that the unfortunate incident would not change the complainant's feelings towards the EU.
Predstavništvo je pritožniku odgovorilo, se mu opravičilo za obnašanje zadevnega zaposlenega, ponudilo, da pritožniku pomaga pri njegovi prvotni zahtevi, in izrazilo upanje, da nesrečni dogodek ne bo spremenil pritožnikovega mnenja o EU.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had taken the appropriate measures and that there were not sufficient grounds to open an inquiry.87/2008/VAV 
Varuh človekovih pravic je sklenil, da je Komisija sprejela primerne ukrepe in da za začetek preiskave ni zadostnih razlogov.87/2008/VAV 
The Ombudsman's procedures
Postopki varuha človekovih pravic
The acknowledgement informs the complainant of the procedure and includes a reference number, as well as the name and telephone number of the person who is dealing with the complaint.
Pritožnik je v potrdilnem pismu obveščen o postopku, navedeni pa so tudi referenčna številka ter ime in telefonska številka osebe, ki obravnava pritožbo.
Whenever possible, the complaint is transferred, or the complainant is given appropriate advice about a competent body to which he or she could turn.During an inquiry, the complainant is informed of each new step taken.
Kadar je to mogoče, se pritožba preda naprej ali pa pritožnik prejme ustrezen nasvet, na kateri pristojni organ naj se obrne.Med preiskavo je pritožnik obveščen o vsakem novem koraku.
When the Ombudsman decides to close the inquiry, he informs the complainant of the results of the inquiry and of his conclusions.
Ko se varuh človekovih pravic odloči, da bo preiskavo zaključil, pritožnika obvesti o njenih rezultatih in svojih ugotovitvah.
The Ombudsman's decisions are not legally binding and do not create legally enforceable rights or obligations for the complainant, or for the institution or body concerned.
Odločbe varuha niso pravno zavezujoče in ne ustvarjajo pravno izvršljivih pravic ali obveznosti za pritožnika oziroma zadevno institucijo ali organ.
Simplified inquiry procedures
■■Poenostavljeni postopki preiskav
As an alternative to opening a written inquiry into possible maladministration, and with the aim of solving the relevant problem rapidly, the Ombudsman makes use of informal, flexible procedures, with the agreement and co-operation of the institution or body concerned.
Namesto da bi varuh človekovih pravic začel pisno preiskavo o morebitnih nepravilnostih, lahko z namenom, da bi hitro rešil zadevno težavo, uporabi neformalne prilagodljive pristope, če se zadevna institucija ali organ strinja in sodeluje.
During 2008, 101 cases were settled after the Ombudsman's intervention succeeded in obtaining a rapid reply to unanswered correspondence (see section 2.9 of the Annual Report 1998 for details of the procedure).
Varuh človekovih pravic je v letu 2008 rešil 101 primer, ko mu je s posredovanjem uspelo dobiti hiter odgovor na neodgovorjene dopise (podrobnosti o tem postopku so v razdelku 2.9 letnega poročila za leto 1998).
A simplified procedure was also used, for example, in the following cases, which feature among this year's star cases:
Uporabljen je bil tudi poenostavljen postopek, na primer v naslednjih primerih, ki so tudi med letošnjimi nadvse uspešnimi primeri:
→→→ Commission settles e-mail dispute in a rapid and exemplary manner
→→→ Komisija je hitro in vzorno rešila spor nastal prek e-pošte
A researcher complained to the Ombudsman following an e-mail dispute he had had with a Commission official.
Raziskovalec se je po sporu, v katerega se je po e-pošti zapletel z uradnico Komisije, pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic.
The dispute centred around the researcher's wish to quote, in an academic publication, the official's reply to a series of critical questions he had put to her by e-mail.
Spor je bil povezan z raziskovalčevo željo, da bi v znanstveni publikaciji citiral odgovore uradnice na več kritičnih vprašanj, ki ji jih je poslal po e-pošti.
The Commission official strongly objected to this.
Uradnica Komisije je temu odločno nasprotovala.
After a careful examination of the complaint, the Ombudsman considered that it might be possible to find a friendly, informal solution.
Varuh človekovih pravic je po skrbni preučitvi pritožbe menil, da bi bilo mogoče najti sporazumno neformalno rešitev.
Both the complainant and the Commission expressed their willingness to explore this possibility.
Pritožnik in Komisija sta pokazala pripravljenost, da preučita to možnost.
Less than a month later, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that, following a meeting he had in the Commission, a satisfactory solution had been reached.
Pritožnik je čez manj kot en mesec obvestil varuha človekovih pravic, da je bila po sestanku, ki ga je imel na Komisiji, najdena zadovoljiva rešitev.
The Ombudsman closed the case as settled by the institution, commending the rapid and exemplary manner in which the Commission had handled the matter.2672/2008/VL 
Varuh človekovih pravic je primer zaključil kot primer, ki ga je rešila institucija, ter pohvalil hiter in vzoren način, na katerega je Komisija obravnavala zadevo.2672/2008/VL 
→→→ Information provided by the Registry of the European Court of Justice (E)
→→→ Podatki, ki jih je zagotovilo sodno tajništvo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (Sodišče ES)
An Austrian citizen sent a letter to the EC�, stating that she wished to sue Austria for a breach of Community law.
Avstrijska državljanka je Sodišču ES poslala dopis in v njem napisala, da želi tožiti Avstrijo zaradi kršitve prava Skupnosti.
The Registry of the Court informed her that the Court was only competent to hear such cases if they were brought before it by the Commission or a Member State.
Sodno tajništvo jo je obvestilo, da je Sodišče ES pristojno samo za obravnavanje primerov, ki jih predloži Komisija ali država članica.
It advised her to turn to the Commission.
Svetovalo ji je, naj se obrne na Komisijo.
She turned to the Ombudsman, complaining that the Registry had not informed her about where to turn in the Commission.
Obrnila se je na varuha človekovih pravic in se pritožila, da je sodno tajništvo ni obvestilo, kje se lahko obrne na Komisijo.
After the Ombudsman's services intervened by telephone, the Registry sent a letter with more detailed information to the complainant.
Ko so službe varuha človekovih pravic posredovale po telefonu, je sodno tajništvo pritožnici poslalo dopis s podrobnejšimi informacijami.
Furthermore, the Registry informed the Ombudsman that it had included these additional indications in its standard letters regarding similar cases. 2448/2008/WP 
Sodno tajništvo je varuha človekovih pravic še obvestilo, da je te dodatne podatke vključilo v standardne dopise za podobne primere. 2448/2008/WP 
Starting an inquiry
■■Sprožitev preiskave
Should the Ombudsman decide to open a written inquiry, the first step is to forward the complaint to the institution or body concerned and request that it send an opinion to the Ombudsman, normally within three calendar months.
Če se varuh človekovih pravic odloči za sprožitev pisne preiskave, je prvi korak posredovanje pritožbe zadevni instituciji ali organu, ki je zaprošen, naj mu pošlje mnenje, običajno v treh mesecih.
The European Parliament and Commission agreed in 2004 to accept a shorter time limit of two months for complaints against refusal of access to documents.
Evropski parlament in Komisija sta se leta 2004 dogovorila, da bosta sprejela krajši rok za pritožbe zoper zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov, in sicer dva meseca.