natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 22 June 2000, the Director-General of DG Education and Culture had received the complainant and explained that the DG would cover the expenses incurred between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
junij a 2000 je generalni direktor GD za izobraževanje in kulturo prejel pritožbo in pojasnil, da bo generalni direktorat kril nastale stroške med 25. novembrom 1998 in 5. januarjem 1999.
In a le er of 30 June 2000, the Director-General had explained that the sum that could be taken in charge amounted to € 1988,54.
V pismu 30. junij a 2000 je generalni direktor pojasnil, da znesek, ki se lahko upošteva, znaša 1.988,54 €.
Inspection of the Commission’s fi le
Pregled spisa Komisij e
In the light of the Commission’s opinion, the Ombudsman considered that he needed further information to deal with the complaint.
Glede na mnenje Komisij e je Varuh menil, da za obravnavo pritožbe potrebuje nadaljnje informacije.
He therefore wrote to the Commission on 15 July 2002 to
Zato je 15. julij a 2002 Komisij o pisno prosil za dostop do njenega spisa.
Request for further information
Zahteva po nadaljnjih informacijah ah
He therefore asked the Commission to ascertain the location of the missing parts of the fi le and to grant him access to the complete file.
Zato je Komisij o zaprosil, naj preveri, kje se nahajajo pogrešani deli spisa in naj mu dovoli dostop do celotnega spisa.
In case the Commission should be unable to find the missing parts of the file, the Ombudsman asked for wri en confirmation to this effect. ect.
Varuh je tudi prosil, da v primeru, da Komisij a ne najde pogrešanih delov, to dejstvo pisno potrdi.
The Commission asked the Ombudsman to consider this deplorable situation with leniency.
Komisij a je Varuha prosila, naj to obžalovanja vredno situacijo oceni prizanesljivo.
In his observations on the Commission’s opinion and its le er of 8 November 2002, the complainant maintained his complaint and made inter alia the following comments:
V svojih pripombah na mnenje Komisij e in v svojem pismu 8. novembra 2002 je pritožnik vztrajal na svoji pritožbi in je med drugim podal naslednje pripombe:
In its opinion, the Commission first noted that DG Education and Culture had taken the position that it was legally obliged to cover only those financial commitments that had been entered into by the association between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju zapisala, da je generalni direktorat za izobraževanje in kulturo zavzel stališče, da mora Komisij a zakonito kriti samo finančne obveznosti, ki so v združenju nastopile med 25. novembrom 1998 in 5. januarjem 1999.
It then confirmed, however, that the Director-General of DG Education and Culture had informed the complainant that the DG would cover the expenses incurred between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
Vendar pa je potem potrdila, da je generalni direktor GD za izobraževanje in kulturo obvestil pritožnika, da bo generalni direktorat kril nastale stroške med 25. novembrom 1998 in 5. januarjem 1999.
These statements were contradictory.
Te izjave so protislovne.
The result of the discussion with the Director-General on 22 June 2000 had indeed been that the la er accepted that the Commission should take in charge the expenses incurred between 25 November 1998 and 5 January 1999.
Izid pogovora z generalnim direktorjem 22. junij a 2000 je res bil, da je leta sprejel, da mora Komisij a prevzeti stroške, ki so nastali med 25. novembrom 1998 in 5. januarjem 1999.
In 1998, the association had applied to work as an info point for the Commission.
Leta 1998 se je združenje prijavilo, da bi delalo kot info točka Komisije.
On 20 February 1998, it had submi ed a declaration according to which it would comply with its contractual obligations, notwithstanding the fact that at that time there were only oral agreements and no wri en contract.
Februarja 1998 je predložilo izjavo, s katero bi privolilo v pogodbene obveznosti, kljub temu, da so imeli takrat le ustne dogovore in nobenih pisnih pogodb.
The association had however relied on oral assurances that this contract would be signed.
Združenje se je zanašalo na ustna zagotovila, da bo ta pogodba podpisana.
On 26 June 1998, the association was informed by the Commission that the fi le in Brussels was considered to have been lost and that therefore the application had not been processed for some time.
26. junij a 1998 je Komisij a obvestila združenje, da se je spis v Bruslju domnevno izgubil in zato zahteva nekaj časa ni bila obravnavana.
Given that these events confronted the association with a dilemma similar to the one in the present case, the association asked the Commission’s service in charge of ma ers relating to info points to provide advance confirmation of the contract that was to be concluded.
Glede na to, da so ti dogodki združenje tudi v tem primeru postavili pred podoben precep, je združenje zaprosilo službo Komisije, odgovorno za info točke, da jim posreduje potrditev pogodbe, ki naj bi jo sklenili.
This confirmation was provided on 17 September 1998.
Potrditev je bila posredovana 17. septembra 1998.
The relevant contract was signed on 16 September 1998 and formally notified to the association on 5 October 1998.
Primerna pogodba je bila podpisana 16. septembra 1998 in uradno priglašena združenju 5. oktobra 1998.
The association thus never had reason to doubt the assurances that had been given to it in both ma ers.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenj in pripomb Varuh ni bil zadovoljen z odgovorom Komisij e na pritožnikove trditve.
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
Varuh je zato v skladu s členom 3 (5) svojega Statuta predlagal Komisij i naslednjo sporazumno rešitev:
A er careful consideration of the opinions and observations, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that the Commission has responded adequately to the complainant’s allegation.
Evropska komisij a naj ponovno preveri svojo odločitev, da združenju Europäisches Kultur- und Informationszentrum in Thüringen zavrne plačilo polne vsote v višini 90.000 €.
In accordance with Article 3 (5) of his Statute, the Ombudsman therefore made the following proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission:
Komisij a je dodala, da spis generalnega direktorata X ni vseboval nobenih sledi o obljubah, na katere se je pritožnik skliceval.
The European Commission should consider reviewing its decision to refuse to pay the Europäisches Kultur- und Informationszentrum in Thüringen the full sum of € 90.000.
3 Varuh je zapisal, da je pritožnik dokazoval, da je Komisij a zavrnila izplačilo celotnega zneska 90.000 €, ki ga je zahtevalo združenje, čeprav je leto že imelo stroške oz. finančne obveznosti na podlagi zagotovil, da jim bo ta vsota dodeljena.
This proposal was based on the following considerations:
Pritožnik se je zato posledično zanašal na načelo varstva legitimnih pričakovanj.
1 The complainant was the director of a German association that had applied to the Commission for a grant of € 90.000.
Skladno s sodno prakso sodišč Skupnosti se ne da sklicevati na kršitev tega načela, razen če uprava da natančna zagotovila zadevni osebi51.V tem primeru je pritožnik pripomnil, da mu je pristojni za primer s strani Komisij e zagotovil, da bo Komisij a dodelila poln znesek 90.000 €, ki ga je združenje zahtevalo.
In the end, only an amount of € 21.988,54 had been granted.
To je natančno zagotovilo.
The complainant claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the balance of the grant that in his view the Commission had accepted to provide to the association.
Vendar pa je potrebno omeniti, da varuh ni mogel preveriti te trditve s sredstvi, ki so mu na podlagi lastnega statuta52na razpolago.
He basically alleged that the association had been entitled to rely on the assurances that he claimed had been made by Mr H. of the Commission’s services and according to which the full amount of € 90.000 would be granted.
Spis Komisije, ki so ga službe varuha človekovih pravic pregledale, ni vseboval nobenih sledi takih zagotovil.
The complainant stressed that it was on this basis that the association had begun to realise its project and incurred expenditure or entered into financial commitments.
Edina oseba, ki bi najbrž lahko osvetlila to vprašanje in ki bi jo varuh človekovih pravic lahko zaslišal kot pričo, t.j. g. H., je umrla.
2 The Commission accepted that the complainant had frequently telephoned with Mr H. during the relevant period.
4 Vendar pa je Varuh menil, da pomanjkanje potrdilnega dokaza v tem primeru ne more biti v škodo pritožnika.
It took the view, however, that since Mr H. had died in November 1999, it was no longer possible to verify what had in fact been said.
Komisij a je sprejela dejstvo, da sta bila pritožnik in g. H. večkrat v telefonskem stiku.
3 The Ombudsman noted that the complainant argued that the Commission had refused to provide the association with the full amount of € 90.000 it had requested although the association had incurred expenditure or entered into financial commitments on the basis of assurances that this amount would be granted.
5 Varuh meni, da obstajajo vsaj trije elementi, ki podpirajo pritožnikov primer. Prvič, glede na to, da se je projekt moral začeti septembra 1998, je združenju očitno bilo zelo pomembno, da v primernem času izve (in najkasneje na začetku septembra 1998), če jim bo Komisij a dodelila zahtevano podporo.
The complainant was thus in effect relying on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
To je pritožnik predstavništvu Komisij e v Nemčiji pisno potrdil 2. julij a 1998.
According to the case law of the Community courts, however, a breach of this principle cannot be invoked unless the administration has given precise assurances to the person concerned51.
Glede na to, da se projekt ni odpovedal, temveč izpeljal, je pritožnikova trditev, da je prejel zadovoljiva zagotovila s strani g. H., verodostojna. Drugič, pritožnik je pojasnil, da je združenje že v preteklosti moralo izvajati (in je izvajalo) projekte na podlagi samo ustnih zagotovil. Varuh je opozoril, da Komisij a tega vidika primera ni komentirala.
It had to be noted, however, that the Ombudsman was unable to verify this allegation with the means that the Statute of the Ombudsman52 put at his disposal.
Tretjič, dejstvu, da si je pritožnik pridobil in se zanesel na zagotovila g.
The Commission’s fi le that had been inspected by the Ombudsman’s services did not contain any trace of such assurances.
H., je priznana večja verodostojnost, saj so se drugi uradniki Komisij e sami zanašali na besedo te osebe.
The only person that could probably have shed light on the issue and that could have been heard as a witness by the Ombudsman, i.e. Mr H. himself, was dead.
Kot je pokazal pregled spisa, je pismo predstavništva Komisij e v Nemčiji 25. novembra 1998 temeljilo na informacijah g. H.
4 The Ombudsman considered, however, that this lack of corroborative evidence could not be held against the complainant in the present case.
6 Varuh je opomnil, da Komisij a ni podala nobenega argumenta, zakaj pritožnik ne bi imel pravice zanesti se na taka zagotovila s strani pristojnega za primer iz Komisije. e.
The Ombudsman considered that in the absence of such records lesser demands had to be made in so far the need for the complainant to establish his allegation was concerned.
7 V tej luči Varuh meni, da bi zavrnitev Komisij e za izplačilo celotnega zneska v višini 90.000 €, ki ga je združenje zahtevalo 31. maja 1998, lahko bila nepravilnost.
First, given that the project had been due to start in September 1998, the association obviously had a vital interest to learn in good time (and at the latest at the beginning of September 1998) whether the Commission would provide the grant it had requested.
Komisij a je v svojem mnenju poudarila, da zaključki Varuha človekovih pravic niso temeljili na dejstvih, ki bi izhajala iz jasnih dokazov, ampak le na domnevah in sklepih, povzetih iz podobnosti drugim situacijam.
This was confirmed by the complainant’s le er of 2 July 1998 to the Commission’s representation in Germany.
Komisij a je prav tako poudarila, da stališče, ki ga je imela doslej, preprosto odseva dolžnost izpolnjevanja načela dobrega finančnega poslovodenja.
The complainant there noted that in the case of a negative reply, the association would have to cancel the project since it was unable to compensate amounts not granted by funds from
V tej zvezi je dobro ponavljati, da je Komisij a na dodeljevanje finančne pomoči prihodnjemu upravičencu lahko vezana le s pisno obvezo, ki je bila pripravljena na podlagi ustreznih pravil.
See for example Case T-72/99 Meyer v Commission [ECR] 2000, II-2521 paragraph 53.
Npr. glej primer T-72/99 Meyer v Komisij a [ECR] 2000, II-2521, odstavek 53.
Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, 1994 OJ L 113/15.
Odločitev Evropskega parlamenta 94/262 z dne 9. marca 1994 o predpisih in splošnih pogojih, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog varuha človekovih pravic, 1994 OJ L 113/15.
The Commission added, however, that in order to preserve the image of the European institutions in the eye of the citizen and to avoid causing damage to the beneficiary in the present case, it was by way of exception ready to accept the Ombudsman’s proposal.
Vendar pa je Komisij a poudarila, da je v želji, da se v očeh državljanov ohrani podoba evropskih institucij in da se upravičencu v tem primeru ne bi povzročala škoda, izjemoma pripravljena sprejeti predlog Varuha.
It would therefore check the account of expenses linked to the relevant project as quickly as possible in order to ascertain the expenses that were eligible and, consequently, the balance due to the beneficiary.
Takoj ko bo to mogoče, bo preverila stroške povezane s tem projektom, se tako prepričala o primernih stroških in na podlagi tega o dolgovanem znesku upravičencu.
The Commission pointed out, however, that the complainant had to be aware of the fact that the final amount of the subsidy would not necessarily correspond to the sum of 90.000 € that had been claimed.
Komisij a je poudarila, da se mora pritožnik zavedati, da končni znesek denarne pomoči ne bo nujno enak vsoti 90.000 €, ki jo je zahteval.
On 20 March 2003, the complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that a friendly solution could be considered as having been brought about.
20. maja je pritožnik službe Evropskega varuha po telefonu obvestil, da je bila sporazumna rešitev izvedena.
Failure to pay balance of grant
Neizplačilo zneska podpore
1.1 The complainant was the director of a German association that had applied to the Commission for a grant of € 90.000.
1.1 Pritožnik je direktor nemškega združenja, ki je Komisij o zaprosilo za podporo v višini 90.000 €. Dodeljen mu je bil le znesek v višini 21.988,54 €.
The complainant claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the balance of the grant that in his view the Commission had accepted to provide to the association.
Pritožnik je trdil, da Komisij a ni izplačala zneska podpore, ki jo je po njegovem mnenju namenila združenju.
He basically alleged that the association had been entitled to rely on the assurances that he claimed had been made by Mr H. of the Commission’s services and according to which the full amount of € 90.000 would be granted.
V osnovi je navajal, da se je združenje upravičeno zanašalo na zagotovila, ki jih je po njegovem mnenju dal g.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission basically took the view that there was no evidence to support the complainant’s claim.
H. iz služb Komisij e in na podlagi katerih naj bi se dodelil znesek v višini 90.000 €.
1.3 A er careful examination of all the relevant facts and arguments, the Ombudsman submi ed a proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission according to which the la er should consider reviewing its decision to refuse to pay the full sum of € 90.000.
1.3 Po temeljiti raziskavi vseh ustreznih dejstev in argumentov je Varuh Komisij i predlagal sporazumno rešitev, na podlagi katere naj bi premislila o ponovni preučitvi svoje odločitve, da zavrne plačilo celotnega zneska v višini 90.000 €.
1.4 In its opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it was, by way of exception, ready to accept the Ombudsman’s proposal.
1.4 V svojem mnenju je Komisij a obvestila Varuha, da je izjemoma pripravljena sprejeti njegov predlog.
It would therefore quickly check the eligibility of the expenses declared by the complainant.
Zato bi na hitro preverila primernost stroškov, ki jih je navedel pritožnik.
Following the Ombudsman’s initiative, it appears that a friendly solution to the complaint has been agreed between the European Commission and the complainant.
Po pobudi Evropskega varuha je razvidno, da sta se pritožnik in Evropska komisij a dogovorila o sporazumni rešitvi.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Zato Varuh primer zaključuje.
COMMISSION ACCEPTS TO PAY COMPENSATION TO FORMER AUXILIARY AGENT
KOMISIJ A SE STRINJA S PLAČILOM NADOMESTILA NEKDANJI POMOŽNI USLUŽBENKI
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1166/2002/(SM)IJH against the European Commission
Odločitev Evropskega varuha o pritožbi 1166/2002/(SM)IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
The complaint was made by a former agent of the Commission.
Pritožbo je vložila nekdanja uslužbenka Komisije.
From 1 May 1995 to 30 April 1998, she worked as an auxiliary agent.
Od 1. maja 1995 do 30. aprila 1998 je delala kot pomožna uslužbenka.
From 15 May 1998 to 15 May 2001, she worked as a temporary agent.
Od 15. maja 1998 do 15. maja 2001 je delala kot začasna uslužbenka.
During her period as an auxiliary agent, the complainant received a secretarial allowance under Article 4a of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and Article 21 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.
V času, ko je bila pomožna uslužbenka, je pritožnica dobivala tajniški dodatek po členu 4a Priloge VII kadrovskih predpisov in členu 21 Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti.
At the start of her temporary contract, the Commission ceased to pay the secretarial allowance.
Ob sklenitvi začasne pogodbe ji je Komisij a nehala plačevati tajniški dodatek.
The complainant did not notice this omission.
Pritožnica te opustitve ni opazila.
The complainant’s tasks over the period 1995-2001 remained unchanged. She received the secretarial allowance as an auxiliary (1995-1998) but not as a temporary agent (1998-2000).
Približno mesec dni pred prenehanjem začasne pogodbe je pritožnica prejela uradno obvestilo, da bi v času začasne pogodbe morala prejemati tajniški dodatek.
In April 2001, her Directorate General made a request for her to be paid the allowance and it was paid for the year 2001.
Vendar ji je bil tajniški dodatek dodeljen le od 1. januarja 2001 do 15. maja 2001.
The complainant is timebarred from contesting the decision, clearly notified to her in a document she signed in May 1998, not to pay her a secretarial allowance when she became a temporary agent.
Pritožnica se je na podlagi člena 90 kadrovskih predpisov pritožila zoper odločitev, da se ji tajniški dodatek plača le od 1. januarja 2001 in ne od začetka njene začasne pogodbe, to je od 15. maja 1998.
Moreover, her pay slips from June 1998 onwards differed in that respect from her pay slip of April 1998.
V odgovoru se je Komisij a strinjala, da pritožnici plača polovico tajniškega dodatka za obdobje od 15. maja 1998 do 31. decembra 2000.
Furthermore, in terms of personal responsibility and liability in negligence in failing to notice the contents of the document se ing out her rights she signed in May 1998, the change to her pay slip and the corresponding reduction of her earnings and on the basis of the test of the reasonable and prudent person, the complainant contributed to the failure to pay her the sums due to her at the time.
17. junij a 2002 se je pritožnica pritožila pri Evropskemu varuhu zoper zavrnitev Komisije, da ji plača celotno vsoto tajniškega dodatka, do katerega je bila upravičena od 15. maja 1998 do 31. decembra 2000.
The complainant’s observations
Trdila je, da ji mora Komisij a plačati ta znesek za nazaj.
For the complainant’s first contract, all steps were correctly taken in order for her to benefit from the allowances due.
Pritožničine naloge so v času 1995-2001 ostale nespremenjene.
She thus had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the encoding of her data when she signed the temporary contract.
Tajniški dodatek je dobila kot pomožna (1995-1998) in ne kot začasna uslužbenka (1998-2000).
She honestly believed that all information given to the responsible official would be taken into account, in particular the fact that she was to perform the same tasks as before, that she would continue to work in the same unit and that it was only a change in contract.
Aprila 2001 je njen generalni direktorat zanjo zahteval, da se jih dodatek izplača in izplačal se je za leto 2001.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman did not consider that the Commission had responded adequately to the complainant’s claim.
Pritožnica ima zastaralni rok za ugovor zoper odločitev, ki jo je jasno zapisano na dokumentu podpisala maja 1998, in sicer, da z začasno pogodbo ne dobi tajniškega dodatka.
Commission to propose a friendly solution on the basis of the following analysis of the issues in dispute between the complainant and the Commission.
Vendar pa ji je v odgovor na njeno pritožbo 29. aprila 2002 nanjo naslovljena odločitev dodelila polovično vrednost dodatka na podlagi delne odgovornosti Komisij e za takratno neizplačilo njenega dodatka, čeprav je v smislu morebitne pritožbe iz malomarnosti sama prispevala v svojo škodo.
The claim for retrospective payment of a secretarial allowance
Pripombe pritožnice vsebujejo naslednje točke:
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to pay her the entire amount of the secretarial allowance to which she was entitled from 15 May 1998 to 31 December 2000.
Ob prvi pritožničini pogodbi je uprava ustrezno ravnala, tako da je lahko pritožnica koristila dodatek, ki ji je pripadal.
She claims that the Commission should pay her this amount retrospectively.
Zato ob podpisovanju začasne pogodbe ni imela razloga, da bi dvomila o natančnosti vpisovanja njenih podatkov.
The Commission argues that the complainant is timebarred from contesting the decision not to pay the secretarial allowance to her as a temporary agent and that, in terms of a potential claim in negligence, she contributed to her loss because she signed a document which confirmed that the secretarial allowance would not be paid.
Po podrobni obravnavi mnenja Komisij e in pripomb pritožnice, se Varuhu ni zdelo, da je Komisij a primerno odgovorila na pritožničine trditve.V skladu s členom 3 (5) Statuta53 je predsedniku
However, since the Commission’s services also bore a share of responsibility, the Commission granted the complainant half the value of the allowance.
Komisij e v pismu predlagal sporazumno rešitev na podlagi naslednjih analiz vprašanj v zvezi s sporom med pritožnico in Komisijo. o.
“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.”
“Kolikor je mogoče, varuh človekovih pravic z zadevo institucij o ali organom poišče rešitev, da bi se odpravile nepravilnosti in zadovoljila pritožba.”
Decisions following an inquiry
Zahteva za plačilo tajniškega dodatka za nazaj
1.4 The Ombudsman also notes the Commission’s argument that the complainant was guilty of contributory negligence.
1.2 Komisij a priznava, da so s spremembo pogodbenega razmerja iz pomožne uslužbenke v začasno pritožničine naloge ostale nespremenjene.
The Commission does not argue, however, that the complainant failed to perform any of her tasks as an auxiliary or temporary agent, or to comply with her obligations under the Staff Regulations.
Komisij a trdi, da je pritožnici zastaral rok za ugovor zoper odločitev, da se ji tajniškega dodatka kot začasni uslužbenki ne plača in da je zaradi morebitne tožbe iz malomarnosti, s podpisom dokumenta, ki potrjuje, da se tajniški dodatek ne izplača, sama prispevala k svoji izgubi.