natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
“documents” since their content had been loaded onto a very large database (Regulation 1049/2001provides for public access to “documents”, not information).
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3008/2005/OV zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In his closing decision, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had failed to give valid reasons for its reliance on the confidentiality provision in Regulation 2390/1999.
Ko so se jim iztekle pogodbe „Proxima I“, so bili pozvani k podpisu pogodb „Proxima II“, ki naj bi začele veljati naslednji dan.
The Commission had only referred in general terms to the interests protected and had not given adequate explanations about the applicability of a relevant exception.
Pritožniki so opazili bistvene spremembe v novih pogodbah glede plač, prispevkov za socialno varnost, nadomestil za selitev in razvrščanja.
The Ombudsman noted in this context that the new Financial Regulation16 and a recent political agreement of the Council on a new Regulation obliging
Pogodbe so podpisali, saj bi bili drugače naslednji dan brezposelni.
Member States to publish national lists of beneficiaries17 ciaries17 undermined the Commission’s arguments as regards confidentiality. dentiality.
Pritožniki so trdili tudi, da bi v bistvu morali biti še vedno upravičeni do enakih pogojev kot prej, kar se tiče plač, prispevkov za socialno varnost, nadomestil za selitev in razvrščanje.
Outputs of “routine operations” were therefore dealt with as “documents”.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju zanikala, da so bili pritožniki pod pritiskom.
However, the information requested by the complainant in this case could not be retrieved through a “routine operation”, but would require complex new programming of the database.
Komisija je v zvezi s trditvami pritožnikov ugovarjala, da so pritožniki s podpisom novih pogodb, ki niso bile podaljšanje prejšnjih pogodb, sprejeli v njih določene pogoje.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s general position regarding public access to information in databases was not satisfactory.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ocenil, da Komisija ni pravočasno obvestila pritožnikov o novih pogojih za njihovo zaposlitev in da je to primer nepravilnosti.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v zvezi s trditvami pritožnikov ugotovil, da ni bilo nepravilnosti, saj je Sporočilo Komisije iz avgusta 2004 zagotovilo podlago, v skladu s katero lahko pogodbe Proxima II vsebujejo drugačne pogoje, kot so veljali v pogodbah Proxima I.
Articles 53b(2)(d) of the amended Financial Regulation.
Vendar so pritožniki navedli, da jih ta možnost ne zanima.
See press release of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, 22-23 October 2007 (available at: h4 p://www.eu2007.pt/NR/rdonlyres/948633D2-DCD5-4413-AFCD-86688D5161F3/0/96806.pdf).
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato ta primer zaključil. Končna odločba je vsebovala dve kritični pripombi glede ugotovljenih nepravilnosti.
Refusal to grant access to an internal advisory document
Zavrnitev dostopa do dopisovanja med Komisijo in Dansko
Summary of decision on complaint 1844/2005/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3193/2005/TN zoper Evropsko komisijo o
A German journalist asked the Commission for access to a document its services had drawn up in 1995, in the preparation of a decision on possible infringement proceedings against Greece in relation to the construction of a new airport in Spata.
Poslanec Evropskega parlamenta iz Danske je zahteval dostop do nekega dopisovanja med Komisijo in danskimi oblastmi.
The journalist took the view that disclosure of the document could hardly have such an e� ect, given that it was nearly ten years old.
Komisija je zavrnila zahtevo na podlagi dejstva, da bi razkritje teh dokumentov
Following a thorough assessment, the Ombudsman addressed a drarecommendation to the Commission, asking it to grant access to the document.
Med samo preiskavo varuha človekovih pravic je Komisija naposled omogočila dostop do zahtevanih dokumentov.
In his view, the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant exception to the rule of public access was so general that it appeared to deprive the exception of its meaning.
Ker pa je Komisija zagovarjala primernost svoje prejšnje zavrnitve, je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da bi bilo koristno preučiti, ali je bila Komisija upravičena zavrniti pritožnikovo prvotno zahtevo po dostopu.
In its detailed opinion, the Commission insisted that access could not be granted. It added that this position was based solely on the sensitivity of the information contained in the document.
Komisija je trdila, da je bila izmenjava pisem sestavni del procesa spremljanja skladnosti s pravom Skupnosti, ki bi mu lahko sledila uvedba postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev zoper Dansko na podlagi Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo.
On delicate issues such as the Spata airport case, it was essential for it to receive unfe4 ered advice from its services and to keep the freedom of not following their recommendations.
Zaradi poudarjene politične občutljivosti tega vprašanja je Komisija ugotovila, da bi bilo razkriti dopisovanja prenagljeno.
In his observations, the complainant emphasised that, if the document was of such an “explosive” character that its disclosure could call into doubt the legality of the Commission’s decision, the interest in disclosure clearly outweighed any other interests.
Varuh človekovih pravic je Komisijo prosil za obrazložitev več dejstev, med drugim tudi vrste preiskave, na katero so se pisma nanašala, da bi se Komisija lahko sklicevala na tretjo alinejo člena 4(2) Uredbe.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had only explained in its detailed opinion why it had refused access to the specific document in question, whereas, in its handling of the complainant’s application and in its opinion, it had only referred to the protection of its decision-making process in general terms.
Komisija je odgovorila, da je bilo glavno vprašanje, ali so danske oblasti dolžne obvestiti Komisijo o rezultatih spremljanja radioaktivnosti okolja na Grenlandiji, da bi se ta lahko opredelila glede potrebe po sanacijskih ukrepih.
As regards the substance of the document, the Ombudsman accepted the Commission’s o� er that he could inspect it. Following this inspection, he stated that he was not convinced that disclosure of the document would have the negative consequences invoked by the Commission.
Komisija je ugotovila, da je zahtevala informacij e na podlagi domneve, da Pogodba o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo velja za Grenlandijo, vendar je pozneje priznala, da ne velja.
Summary of decision on complaint 3008/2005/OV against the European Commission
Komisija je trdila, da v času pritožnikove zahteve po dostopu še vedno ni bilo jasno, ali si bo od Danske še naprej prizadevala pridobiti informacij e na prostovoljni podlagi.
The four complainants were employed as International Contracted Civilians with the European Union Police Mission “Proxima” in Skopje in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). When their “Proxima I” contracts expired, they were invited to sign “Proxima II” contracts, which would take e� ect on the following day.
Varuh človekovih pravic je opazil, da je Komisija pri obravnavi zahteve po dostopu zatrjevala, da bi postopek spremljanja lahko pokazal potrebo po uvedbi postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev na podlagi Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo, čeprav je do trenutka vloge zahtevka priznala, da Pogodba ne velja za Grenlandijo. Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da Komisija ni pojasnila, katere (druge) vrste preiskav bi lahko bila opravila na podlagi svojih pristojnosti.
As regards the complainants’ claims, the Commission argued that by signing the new contracts, which were not extensions of the previous contracts, the complainants had accepted the conditions stipulated therein.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da prvotne zavrnitve dostopa do dopisovanja Komisija ni sprejela na podlagi veljavnih in ustreznih razlogov.
Refusal to provide access to correspondence between the Commission and Denmark
Domnevna nepoštena obravnava v postopku javnega razpisa
Summary of decision on complaint 3193/2005/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3693/2005/ID (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisijo o
A Danish MEP requested access to certain correspondence between the Commission and the Danish authorities The Commission rejected the request on the grounds that disclosure of the documents concerned would undermine the protection of the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent of Regulation 1049/200118), as well as seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process because the documents related to a ma4 er where the decision had not been taken by the institution (Article 4(3), first subparagraph, of the Regulation).
Ta pritožba se nanaša na zavrnitev pritožnikovih ponudb na podlagi določbe iz obvestila o razpisu za oddajo javnih naročil, po kateri „fizična ali pravna oseba (vključno s pravnimi osebami iz iste pravne skupine) lahko predloži [n]ajveč (...) šest prijav za vse lote, ne glede na obliko udeležbe (...)“.
In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Commission eventually gave access to the documents requested. However, since the Commission appeared to defend the propriety of its former refusal,
Pritožnik, Evropsko gospodarsko interesno združenje (EGIZ), ustanovljeno na podlagi Uredbe 2137/8519, je trdil, da je Komisija neupravičeno obtožila X, člana tega združenja, da se je prijavil za sedem lotov.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85 of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest Grouping (EEIG), OJ 1985 L 199, p. 1.
Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 2137/85 z dne 25. julija 1985 o Evropskem gospodarskem interesnem združenju (EGIZ) (UL 1985 L 199, str. 1).
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 as having a bearing on the application of these criteria, is particularly important.
LETNO POROČILO 2007
Such information is likely to a� ect the preparation and formulation of the tenders and is substantially relevant to the significant Community interest of a� ording potential tenderers the opportunity to compete on an equal footing.
Varuh človekovih pravic je najprej opozoril, da ni njegova naloga presojati dopustnost ponudb niti s svojo presojo nadomestiti presojo zadevne institucije, ali ponudba izpolnjuje veljavna merila glede dopustnosti/izpolnjevanja pogojev.
Hence, when the contracting authority examines the tenders submi4 ed to it, due regard must be had to the content of such information, at least to the extent that its accuracy or propriety has not been contested by a (potential) tenderer or it is not manifestly violative of the relevant provisions of the tender notice (or similar document) or of Community law.
Naročnik mora pri presoji prejetih ponudb ustrezno upoštevati vsebino takšnih informacij , vsaj toliko, da njihove točnosti ali ustreznosti ni izpodbijal potencialni ponudnik ali da očitno ne kršijo ustreznih določb iz obvestila o javnem razpisu (ali podobnega dokumenta) ali zakonodaje Skupnosti.
In the present case, the Ombudsman found that the Commission failed to comply with the abovementioned requirement.
V tem primeru je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da Komisija ni upoštevala prej navedene zahteve.
The Ombudsman also found that the Commission failed to give adequate reasons for its challenged decision, taking into account certain passages of its Communication on the participation of EEIGs in public contracts and programmes financed by public funds, on which the complainant could, at least in principle, justifiably rely when preparing its bids.
Ugotovil je tudi, da Komisija ni ustrezno obrazložila svojega izpodbijanega sklepa, ob upoštevanju določenih odlomkov iz svojega sporočila o sodelovanju Evropskega gospodarskega interesnega združenja pri javnih naročilih in programih, ki se financirajo z javnimi sredstvi, na kar bi se pritožnik vsaj načeloma lahko upravičeno oprl pri pripravi ponudb.
Taking into account that the relevant contracts had been awarded, signed and were currently being executed and that the challenged decision concerned the selection phase of the tender procedure, the Ombudsman concluded that it would not be justifiable to accept the complainant’s claim that the challenged decision should be revoked and the applications should be reinstated.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da so bila ustrezne pogodbe sklenjene, podpisane in se trenutno izvajajo, ter da se izpodbijani sklep nanaša na izbirno fazo razpisnega postopka, je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da ne bi bilo upravičeno sprejeti pritožnikove zahteve, da se izpodbijani sklep prekliče in ponovno oddajo vloge.
Given that the complainant had not made any other claim, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.
Ker pritožnik ni imel drugih zahtev, je varuh človekovih pravic primer zaključil s kritično oceno.
Avoidable delay in dealing with infringement complaint
Nepotrebne zamude pri obravnavi pritožb o kršitvah
Summary of decision on complaint 962/2006/OV against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 962/2006/OV zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In November 2002 and March 2003, several Dutch residents of the municipality of Bellingwolde, lodged infringement complaints with the European Commission.
Novembra 2002 in marca 2003 je več nizozemskih prebivalcev občine Bellingwolde vložilo pritožbe o kršitvah zoper Evropsko komisijo.
They alleged an infringement of Directive 85/337/EC20 by the German authorities who had authorised the building of a wind-park in the German municipality of Rhede, close to the Dutch border.
Navajali so kršitev Direktive 85/337/EC20, ki so jo storile nemške oblasti, ko so dovolile gradnjo vetrnih elektrarn v občini Rhede v Nemčiji v bližini meje z Nizozemsko.
The alleged infringements concerned the detrimental consequences of the project on the environment and the lack of an environmental impact assessment.
Navedbe o kršitvah so se nanašale na škodljive posledice, ki naj bi jih projekt imel na okolje, in neizvedbo presoje vplivov na okolje. Komisija je večkrat obljubila, da bo sprejela sklep glede pritožb.
However, by April 2006, the complainants had still not heard from the Commission.
Vendar pa do aprila 2006 pritožniki še vedno niso prejeli odgovora Komisije.
One of the complainants therefore complained on behalf of them all to the Ombudsman, alleging avoidable delay by the Commission.
Zato se je eden izmed pritožnikov v imenu vseh pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic, pri čemer je navajal domnevne nepotrebne zamude Komisije. e.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it had launched an infringement procedure against Germany within one year of the receipt of the complaints, in accordance with the Commission’s Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law21.
Komisija je izdala mnenje, v kateremu trdi, da je uvedla postopek zoper Nemčijo glede kršitev v enemu letu od prejema pritožb, kar je v skladu s Sporočilom Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožniki v primerih kršitev prava Skupnosti21.
A final decision on the case had not been taken until June 2006 because of extensive discussions within the Commission and the di culty of the legal question concerned.
Primer je bil obravnavan po hitrem postopku, dokler ni junij a 2004 Komisija od nemških oblasti dobila odgovora na obrazloženo mnenje.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that the Commission’s decision to close the case had only been adopted on 28 June 2006, that is to say nearly two years a er the German authorities’ reply to the reasoned opinion had been received.
Komisija ni oblikovala končnega sklepa o zadevi do junij a 2006 zaradi obsežnih razprav, ki so potekale znotraj Komisije in same težavnosti tega pravnega vprašanja.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS had failed to deal with the complaints within a reasonable period of time and therefore closed the case with a critical remark.
Sklenil je, da ob upoštevanju pomanjkanja specifičnih razlag, ki bi lahko opravičile zamudo, Komisija ni obravnavala pritožbe v razumnem roku, in je zato primer zaključil s kritično oceno.
Failure of the Commission to properly investigate a complaint into the allegedly erroneous transposition of the insurance mediation directive
Komisija ni ustrezno preučila pritožbe o domnevno napačnem prenosu direktive o zavarovalnem posredovanju
Summary of decision on complaint 3543/2006/FOR against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3543/2006/FOR zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The Ombudsman received a complaint against the Commission from an Irish citizen concerning the alleged failure of the Commission to properly investigate the allegedly erroneous transposition of Directive 2002/92/EC (the “Insurance Mediation Directive”) into Irish law.
Varuh človekovih pravic je prejel pritožbo zoper Komisijo, ki jo je posredoval državljan Irske glede domnevno neustrezne obravnave domnevno napačnega prenosa Direktive 2002/92/EC („Direktiva o zavarovalnem posredovanju“) v zakonodajo Irske, ki naj bi jo izvedla Komisija.
According to the complainant, sellers of insurance policies in Ireland had to comply with legislation which was designed to regulate the sale of investment products.
Po navedbah pritožnika morajo ponudniki zavarovalnih polic na Irskem delovati v skladu z zakonodajo, ki je v osnovi zakonsko urejala ponudbo naložbenih produktov.
Further, banks which also acted as insurance intermediaries were wrongly excluded from the application of insurance mediation rules.
Prav tako je trdil, da so bile banke, ki so bile hkrati tudi zavarovalni posredniki, neupravičeno izvzete od upoštevanja pravil o zavarovalnem posredovanju.
The Commission stated in its opinion that the Insurance Mediation Directive was adopted under the principle of “minimal harmonisation”.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da je bila Direktiva o zavarovalnem posredovanju sprejeta po načelu „minimalnega usklajevanja“.
Thus, Member States were entitled to regulate details.
Zato so države članice imele pravico, da podrobneje zakonsko uredijo področje.
Therefore, Member States, and not the Commission, were responsible for any so-called “goldplating”.
Iz tega razloga so izključno države članice in ne Komisija odgovorne za kakršen koli gold-plating (dodajanje dodatnih pravil v postopku prenosa v nacionalno zakonodajo.)
The Commission also stated that it had been informed by the Irish authorities that a revision of the Irish legislation, designed to resolve the situation, was in the pipeline.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da so jo irske oblasti obvestile, da so spremembe irske zakonodaje, ki naj bi omogočile rešitev nastalega zapleta, že v parlamentarnem postopku.
According to the information the Commission received from the Irish Finance Ministry, banks mediating insurance products will be included in the scope of application of the revised rules.
Sodeč po informacijah, ki jih je Komisija prejela od Ministrstva za finance Republike Irske, bodo spremenjena pravila veljala tudi za banke, ki posredujejo zavarovalne produkte.
The Commission also stated that, in addition, the issue of possible overregulation of intermediaries in Ireland should be se4 led by the revised rules.
Komisija je prav tako navedla, naj spremenjena pravila uredijo tudi morebitno čezmerno zakonsko urejanje posredništva na Irskem.
The Ombudsman, in his decision, first of all observed that the Commission had failed to classify initial correspondence from the complainant as a “complaint”.
V svoji odločbi je varuh človekovih pravic najprej ugotovil, da Komisija ni opredelila prvotnega dopisovanja pritožnika za „pritožbo“.
As a result of this procedural error, the Ombudsman made a critical remark.
Zaradi te napake v postopku je varuh človekovih pravic dal kritično oceno.
The Ombudsman also noted that the complainant and the Commission, and indeed the Irish authorities, now shared the view that certain aspects of the legislation transposing the Insurance Mediation Directive into Irish law do not conform with the Insurance Mediation Directive.
Prav tako je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da so si tako pritožnik in Komisija kot tudi irske oblasti zdaj enotni, da določeni vidiki zakonodaje, ki ureja prenos Direktive o zavarovalnem posredovanju v zakonodajo Republike Irske niso v skladu z Direktivo o zavarovalnem posredovanju.
In particular, the complainant and the Commission now appear to agree that Ireland wrongly excluded banks from the insurance mediation rules.
Še posebno to velja za pritožnika in Komisijo, saj se zdaj strinjata, da je Irska neupravičeno izvzela banke od upoštevanja pravil o zavarovalnem posredovanju.
The Ombudsman noted that the Irish authorities made a commitment to the Commission to rectify the errors identified in Irish legislation.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da so se irske oblasti Komisiji zavezale popraviti napake, ki so jih odkrili v zakonodaji Republike Irske.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission is obliged to verify if Ireland has indeed adopted the legislation which it has commi4 ed to adopt, with an eye to rectifying the errors that the complainant identified in Irish legislation and the Commission agrees do exist.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je Komisija dolžna preveriti, ali je Republika Irska resnično sprejela zakonodajo, kot se je obvezala, da odpravi napake, ki jih je pritožnik ugotovil v zakonodaji Republike Irske in za katere se Komisija strinja, da obstajajo.
A failure to do so on the part of the Commission would constitute maladministration.
Če Komisija tega ne bo storila, bo varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil nepravilnosti.
In this context, the Ombudsman stated, in a further remark, that the Commission should arrive at a decision to issue a formal notice to Ireland, or a reasoned decision to close the case, by no later than 26 January 2008.
V zvezi s tem je varuh človekovih pravic v dodatni pripombi navedel, da mora Komisija sprejeti sklep o izdaji uradnega obvestila Republiki Irski ali utemeljenega sklepa o zaključitvi primera najpozneje do 26. januarja 2008.
The complainant inquired as to the apparently considerable delay in registering his application.
Pritožnik je v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001 skupina evropskih regulatorjev. Prošnjo je obravnavala Komisija. a.
According to Regulation 1049/2001, the deadline for replying to an application for access begins on the date of registration.
Pritožnika je zanimalo, zakaj je prišlo do domnevne precejšnje zamude pri vpisu njegove prošnje v register.
The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant did not appear to wish to pursue this ma4 er as a specific allegation.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da pritožnik te zadeve očitno ne želi obravnavati kot posebne obtožbe.
However, he did make a further remark in which he stated that, in his view, the legal obligation to handle applications promptly implies that the Commission should organise its administrative services so as to ensure that registration normally takes place, at the latest, on the first working day following receipt of an application.
Vendar je vseeno podal še pripombo, v kateri je navedel, da bi morala po njegovem Komisija glede na svojo obveznost takojšnje obravnave prošenj poskrbeti za tako organizacij o svojih upravnih storitev, s katero bi zagotovila, da vpis v register običajno nastopi najpozneje prvi delovni dan po prejemu prošnje.
The complainant had furthermore alleged maladministration with respect to the Commission’s extension of the deadline for replying to his application.
Pritožnik se je poleg tega skliceval na domnevne nepravilnosti glede tega, da je Komisija podaljšala rok za odgovor na njegovo prošnjo.