natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman noted that, with a view to improving the eUciency and transparency of its relationship with citizens, the Commission could consider establishing and publicising procedures for receiving and handling complaints concerning the use of EU financial assistance, analogous to those applicable in its 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law5.
Varuh je dejal, da naj Komis` a v prid boljših in preglednejših odnosov z državljani razmisli o oblikovanju postopkov za sprejemanje in obravnavo pritožb v zvezi z uporabo fi na n Ï ne pomoÏi EU in naj o njih obvesti javnost. Postopki naj bodo podobni tistim iz sporoÏila Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic iz leta 2002, ki govori o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti.5
ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT RELATING TO FOOD LAW
PRITOŽBA GLEDE ŽIVILSKE ZAKONODAJE NA PODLAGI JLENA 226
Summary of decision on complaint 295/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 295/2004/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging that a number of public authorities and private enterprises were responsible for a lack of food safety in Spain. According to
V zvezi z domnevo, da španske oblasti potrošnikov niso seznanile z nevarnostmi, je Komis` a dejala, da doloÏbe Uredbe o posredovanju podatkov potrošnikom še niso zaÏele veljati, saj imajo države Ïlanice na voljo prehodno obdobje do 1. januarja 2007.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY the complainant, the situation infringed EU legislation on this mamer, in particular the provisions of Regulation 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law6.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
The Ombudsman noted that the procedures to be followed by the Commission in its handling of complaints are set out in its 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je poudaril, da so postopki, ki jih mora Komis` a upoštevati pri obravnavi pritožb, navedeni v njenem sporoÏilu Evropskemu parlamentu in varuhu iz leta 2002, ki govori o odnosih s pritožnikom v zvezi s kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti.7 PreuÏil je, ali so obtožbe pritožnika v luÏi doloÏb tega sporoÏila utemeljene.
As regards the time taken to handle the case, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had submimed his complaint to the Commission in January 2003 and that, having completed its inquiry, the Commission informed him in November 2003 of its proposal to close the case.
Kar zadeva trajanje obravnave primera, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic pripomnil, da je pritožnik vložil pritožbo pri Komis` i januarja 2003 in da ga je ta po zakljuÏku preiskave novembra 2003 obvestila o svojem predlogu, da zakljuÏi primer.
Accordingly, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had completed its examination of the complaint within the one-year rule set out in its own Communication.
Varuh je še ugotovil, da je Komis` a pritožbo preuÏila v roku enega leta, kot je predpisano v njenem sporoÏilu.
The Ombudsman also concluded that the complainant had, through several communications, been informed in writing of all the steps taken by the Commission in relation to his complaint, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Communication.
Navedel je , da je bil pritožnik z veÏ sporoÏili pisno obvešÏen o vseh korakih, ki jih je Komis` a naredila v zvezi z njegovo pritožbo, v skladu s pravili, predpisanimi v zgoraj omenjenem sporoÏilu.
Finally, the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission’s reliance on Article 4(3) of Regulation 178/2002, which requires that “[e]xisting food law principles and procedures shall be adapted as soon as possible and by 1 January 2007 at the latest [...]” appeared to be reasonable.
Ocenil je tudi, da se je Komis` a upraviÏeno sklicevala na Ïlen 4(3) Uredbe št. 178/2002, ki se glasi: „obstojeÏa naÏela in postopki živilske zakonodaje se prilagod`o Ïim prej, vendar najpozneje do 1. januarja 2007”.
The Ombudsman therefore took the view that the Commission acted within its legal authority when it decided to close the case a W er having considered that, on the basis of the information contained in the complaint, there were no grounds to initiate infringement proceedings against Spain.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je zato ocenil, da je Komis` a ravnala v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi, ko je primer zakljuÏila, saj na podlagi podatkov v pritožbi ne bi bilo mogoÏe sprožiti postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Špan`i. i.
ALLEGEDLY DISCRIMINATORY JOB ADVERTISEMENTS
DOMNEVNO DISKRIMINATORNI OGLASI ZA SLUŽBO
Summary of decision on complaint 338/2004/OV against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 338/2004/OV zoper Evropsko komis` o
The European Esperanto Union made a complaint against the Commission concerning alleged linguistic discrimination by European organisations that are financed by the Commission and by companies that have contracts with the Commission.
Evropska zveza za esperanto se je pritožila proti Komis`i, ker naj bi evropske organizac`e, ki jih ta fi na n Ï n o podpira, in podjetja, ki imajo z njo sklenjene pogodbe, domnevno izvajali jezikovno diskriminac`o.
The Ombudsman had already dealt with an earlier complaint from the World Esperanto Association (case 659/2002/IP) concerning the same mamer. er.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pred tem že obravnaval pritožbo Svetovnega združenja za esperanto (primer 659/2002/IP) v zvezi z istim vprašanjem.
In the present complaint, the European Esperanto Union pointed out that various organisations and companies continued to publish job announcements requiring “English mother tongue” or an “English native speaker” and that the Commission had not taken legal action.
Evropska zveza za esperanto je v pritožbi poudarila, da številne organizac` e in podjetja v oglasih za delo še vedno zahtevajo „anglešÏino kot materni jezik” in „rojene govorce anglešÏine”, proti Ïemer Komis` a ni zakonsko ukrepala.
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in mamers of food safety, OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1.
Tako v ravnanju Komis` e ni našel nepravilnosti. Je pa predlagal, naj Komis` a morebitne dokaze o jezikovni diskriminac`i, za katero je odgovoren eden njenih pogodbenikov ali upraviÏencev, posreduje pristojnim nacionalnim oblastem ali osebo, ki je predložila dokaze, napoti na ustrezen organ.
No maladministration by the Commission was therefore found.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
MANAGEMENT OF EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
UPRAVLJANJE EVROPSKIH SKLADOV ZA REGIONALNI RAZVOJ
Summary of decision on complaint 732/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 732/2004/ELB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant, who was the director of a Centre that was selected to receive a grant financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), alleged that the Commission had failed to ensure the proper management of ERDF funds.
Pritožnik, direktor centra, ki so mu bila dodeljena sredstva iz Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj (ESRR), je menil, da Komis` a ni poskrbela za ustrezno upravljanje sredstev ESRR.
He claimed that the Commission should contact the Italian authorities responsible for managing these funds in Italy, in order to request payment of the expenses incurred by the complainant, oblige those authorities to comply with the contract and to pay interest for late payment, and, possibly, sanction Italy for its poor management of the funds.
Menil je, da bi morala Komis` a stopiti v stik z ital`anskimi oblastmi, odgovornimi za upravljanje teh sredstev v Ital`i, in od njih zahtevati plaÏilo stroškov, ki so bremenili pritožnika. Prav tako bi morala oblasti obvezati k izpolnjevanju pogodbe in plaÏilu obresti za zakasnelo izplaÏilo, Ïe bi bilo mogoÏe, pa še kaznovati državo za slabo upravljanje sredstev.
According to the Commission, Member States are responsible for the management of Structural Funds programmes and for designating the managing and the paying authorities.
Komis` a je menila, da so države Ïlanice same odgovorne za upravljanje programov strukturnih skladov in imenovanje organov, pristojnih za upravljanje in izplaÏilo sredstev.
Within its powers of control and follow-up, the Commission ensured compliance with the principle of timely payment of contributions, provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1, fi W h indent, of Regulation 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds8. The Commission had requested information from the Italian authorities, from which it concluded that the complainant was responsible for some delays, as his bank data were incomplete.
Komis` a je v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi za nadzor in spremljanje sredstev zagotovila spoštovanje naÏela pravoÏasnega plaÏila prispevkov, kot izhaja iz Ïlena 32, odstavka 1, pete alineje Uredbe št. 1260/1999 o splošnih doloÏbah o strukturnih skladih.8 Od ital`anskih oblasti je zahtevala podatke, iz katerih je ugotovila, da je za zamudo delno odgovoren pritožnik, saj je posredoval nepopolne banÏne podatke.
In April 2004, the paying authority informed the Commission that the beneficiary had been paid.
Aprila 2004 je plaÏilni organ obvestil Komis` o o plaÏilu upraviÏencu. Komis` a je pisala organu za upravljanje, da bi se seznanila s fi na n Ï n o ureditv`o programa, in zahtevala, da se to vprašanje obravnava na naslednjem sestanku nadzornega odbora.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY and to take measures to reduce the deadlines.
Ta je sklenil, da bo preuÏil ustreznost fi na n Ï ne ureditve, ki jo je izbral plaÏilni organ, in sprejel ukrepe za skrajšanje rokov.
The Commission was not in a position to impose sanctions or take measures against the paying authority.
Komis` a ni bila pristojna za uvedbo kazni ali ukrepov proti plaÏilnemu organu.
The Ombudsman considered that, although the paying authorities designated by the Member States are responsible for the timely payment of ERDF funds, the Commission’s responsibility for the proper management of ERDF funds includes satisfying itself that the management and control systems communicated to it by Member States are appropriate and adequate to ensure that paying authorities comply with their obligation of timely payment.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da se mora Komis` a kljub dejstvu, da so plaÏilni organi, ki jih imenuje država Ïlanica, odgovorni za pravoÏasno izplaÏevanje sredstev ESRR, prepriÏati, ali so upravljanje in nadzorni sistemi, o katerih ji poroÏa država Ïlanica, ustrezni in ali zagotavljajo pravoÏasna izplaÏila plaÏilnega organa.
As regards the complainant’s allegation that the Commission had failed to ensure the proper management of ERDF funds, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate and adequate steps to discharge its responsibilities for the proper management of ERDF funds.
Kar zadeva obtožbe pritožnika, da Komis` a ni zagotovila ustreznega upravljanja sredstev ESRR, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da je sprejela ustrezne in zadostne ukrepe za prenos odgovornosti za ustrezno upravljanje sredstev ESRR na druge organe.
He therefore found no maladministration.
Zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
As regards the complainant’s claims, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate action to ensure payment to the complainant.
Kar zadeva pritožnikove navedbe, je varuh ocenil, da je Komis` a ravnala ustrezno, da bi zagotovila plaÏilo pritožniku.
He pointed out that the responsibility for paying interest would fall on the Italian paying authority.
Poudaril je, da je za izplaÏilo obresti odgovoren ital`anski plaÏilni organ.
Finally, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s explanations as regards its lack of power to impose sanctions on Italy appeared reasonable.
Varuh je še menil, da se zdi razlaga Komis` e o tem, zakaj ne more uvesti sankc` proti Ital`i, utemeljena.
EVALUATION OF A PROJECT PROPOSAL (1)
OCENA PREDLOGA PROJEKTA (1)
Summary of decision on complaint 758/2004/ELB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 758/2004/ELB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant’s proposal to the Commission for an indirect RTD (Research, Technological development and Demonstration) project was rejected.
Komisija je zavrnila predlog pritožnice v razpisu za posredni projekt na podroÏju raziskav, tehnološkega razvoja in predstavitvenih dejavnosti.
The complainant alleged that the independent experts who decided that her proposal for the development of intraocular lenses was irrelevant to the Strategic Objective concerned had made an error.
Pritožnica je trdila, da so neodvisni strokovnjaki storili napako pri oceni, da njen predlog za razvoj intraokularnih leÏ ne sodi med strateške cilje.
She also alleged that the procedure was unfair, since it was not possible to challenge the decision taken by the experts or to submit a second proposal.
Dejala je, da je bil postopek nepraviÏen, saj odloÏitvi strokovnjakov ni bilo mogoÏe oporekati, prav tako pa ni bilo mogoÏe predložiti novega predloga.
Finally, she alleged that the information available to her during the procedure was inadequate and unclear and that information arrived too late for her to consider making a new submission.
Trdila je še, da so bili podatki, ki so ji bili na voljo med postopkom, nezadostni in nejasni ter da jih je prejela prepozno, da bi lahko razmislila o vložitvi novega predloga.
According to the Commission, a proposal must be evaluated in the context of the Strategic Objective concerned, its focal points and the overall objectives of the Work Programme.
Kot je trdila Komis` a, je treba predloge ocenjevati v luÏi strateških ciljev, glavnih toÏk in splošnih ciljev delovnega programa.
The unanimous opinion of the three independent experts was that the proposal was clearly not relevant.
Vsi tr`e neodvisni strokovnjaki so se strinjali, da predlog pritožnice ni dovolj pomemben.
The Commission had reviewed this opinion and concluded that it was justified.
Komis` a je njihovo mnenje preuÏila in se z njim strinjala.
To ensure fair and equal treatment, there is no contact between the Commission and applicants on their proposal until a W er completion of the evaluation.
Komis` a in vlagatelji predlogov ne smejo imeti stikov, dokler ocenjevanje predloga ni konÏano, da bi tako zagotovili praviÏno in enakopravno obravnavo.
However, once the evaluation has been completed, the Commission is ready to provide, at an applicant’s request, explanations additional to those contained in the Evaluation Summary Report.
Po koncu ocenjevanja pa je Komis` a na prošnjo vlagatelja pripravljena ponuditi dodatna pojasnila k poroÏilu o ocenjevanju.
In these circumstances, he did not consider that the absence of an appeal mechanism against the experts’ evaluation could, in itself, constitute structural or systemic maladministration. Finally, the Ombudsman considered it to be
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1260/1999 z dne 21. jun` a 1999 o splošnih doloÏbah o strukturnih skladih, UL 1999, L 161/1, str.1.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY clear that the complainant could not have re-submimed a revised proposal under the same call for proposals because of the expiry of the deadline for submissions and that the complainant had not shown that the Commission had failed to provide her with timely information with a view to a new submission for the following call.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da je za odgovor na vprašanje, ali je predlog pritožnice sodil v okvir strateških ciljev, potrebno znanstveno mnenje in tehniÏno znanje, zato se lahko v svoji preiskavi omeji le na utemeljenost odloÏitve Komis`e, da potrdi izide ocenjevanja. Ocenil je, da je odloÏitev Komis` e zelo oÏitno smiselna.
HANDLING OF AN ARTICLE 226 COMPLAINT
Ocenil je še, da pritožnica oÏitno ne bi mogla vložiti popravljenega predloga na istem razpisu, saj je rok za oddajo že potekel.
Summary of decision on complaint 1298/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi št. 1298/2004/PB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant had submimed a complaint to the Commission concerning alleged breaches by the United Kingdom of Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance9.
Pritožnica je na Komis` o naslovila pritožbo z domnevo, da je Velika Britan` a kršila direktivo št. 73/239/EGS o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o zaÏetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti neposrednega zavarovanja razen življenjskega zavarovanja.9
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she alleged that she had received an unsatisfactory explanation for the Commission’s failure to reply to a lemer that she had sent on 29 May 2003.
V pritožbi varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je pritožnica navedla, da je prejela nezadovoljivo razlago Komis` e o tem, zakaj ni prejela odgovora na svoje pismo, poslano 29. maja 2003.
She also alleged that the Commission had failed to reply to her questions as to (i) why the Commission withdrew a planned infringement proceeding against the United Kingdom in 1978, (ii) why the Commission allowed (as she saw it) the United Kingdom to infringe Community law, and (iii) how she herself could obtain a judgment by the European Court of Justice.
Prav tako je navedla, da ji Komis` a ni odgovorila na vprašanja, in sicer (i) zakaj je leta 1978 opustila predvideni postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev proti Veliki Britan`i, (ii) zakaj je (po mnenju pritožnice) Veliki Britan`i dovolila kršenje zakonodaje Skupnosti in (iii) kako bi lahko pritožnica sama dosegla razsodbo SodišÏa Evropskih skupnosti.
Finally, she alleged that the Commission had failed to provide her with information as to an established procedure in the United Kingdom enabling a citizen to obtain compensation for loss and/or damage caused by infringement of Community law.
Navedla je še, da ji Komis` a ni posredovala podatkov o uveljavljenem postopku v Veliki Britan`i, ki državljanom omogoÏa pridobitev odškodnine za izgubo ali škodo, povzroÏeno zaradi kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti.
Following his examination of the relevant correspondence, the Ombudsman found that the Commission appeared generally to have made eTorts to act diligently in its handling of communications from the complainant and that it had apologised to the complainant and taken corrective measures in relation to the one delay that did occur.
Po preuÏitvi zadevne korespondence je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic podal splošno oceno, da si je Komis` a prizadevala za vestno delovanje pri obravnavi sporoÏil pritožnice ter da se je pritožnici opraviÏila zaradi zamude in napako ustrezno popravila.
The Ombudsman furthermore considered that the Commission’s explanation for the delay appeared credible.
Menil je tudi, da se zdi obrazložitev Komis` e glede zamude utemeljena.
The Ombudsman also noted that the Commission had explained to the complainant (i) that the Commission’s services had been satisfied with the United Kingdom’s undertaking to adopt the required legislation, (ii) that it had not considered that it had allowed the United Kingdom to infringe Community law, and (iii) that the national courts would be competent to rule on the past conformity of national legislation with Community law.
Nadalje je opozoril, da je Komis` a pritožnici pojasnila, (i) da so bile službe Komis` e zadovoljne z zavezo Velike Britan`e o sprejetju zahtevane zakonodaje, (ii) da po lastnem mnenju Veliki Britan`i ni dopustila kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti in (iii) da bi bila za ugotavljanje pretekle skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje z zakonodajo Skupnosti pristojna nacionalna sodišÏa.
The Ombudsman considered that these replies from the Commission were adequate replies.
Varuh je menil, da so bili odgovori Komis` e zadovoljivi.
The Ombudsman considered that it was reasonable for the Commission, in its communications with private individuals relating to concrete cases, to limit its information on issues of compensation claims against Member States to the rights established in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Ocenil je, da bi bilo smiselno, Ïe bi Komis` a v korespondenci s posamezniki o konkretnih primerih informac` e v zvezi z odškodninskimi zahtevami do držav Ïlanic omejila na pravice, ki izhajajo iz sodne prakse SodišÏa Evropskih skupnosti.
The Commission could not, in the Ombudsman’s view, be obliged to provide legal advice regarding national rules of procedure.
Po varuhovem mnenju Komis` a ni dolžna dajati pravnih nasvetov o nacionalnih postopkovnih pravilih.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic tako ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3.
Prva Direktiva Sveta 73/239/EGS z dne 24. jun` a 1973 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o zaÏetku opravljanja in opravljanju dejavnosti neposrednega zavarovanja razen življenjskega zavarovanja, UL 1973 L 228, str.3.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY for an oTshore wind power project oT the Irish coast.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
The complainant alleged that the Commission had made a manifest error of evaluation of the consortium’s project proposal by stating that the consortium lacked a specialised foundation designer.
Pritožba je bila povezana z oceno, ki jo je Komis` a podala o predlogu projekta v šestem okvirnem raziskovalnem programu. Konzorc` evropskih podjet` je namreÏ zaprosil za sredstva za projekt vetrne elektrarne na morju ob irski obali.
According to the complainant, the proposal stated that the complainant’s Danish partner was a specialist and, in all likelihood, the world leader in the relevant field.
V pritožbi je navedel, da je Komis` a napravila zelo oÏitno napako pri oceni predloga, saj je menila, da nima specializiranega projektanta.
The complainant claimed, among other things, that the Commission should correct the factual errors made in its evaluation of the project proposal.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je v predlogu navedel specialista, in sicer danskega partnerja, ki je zelo verjetno vodilni na tem podroÏju v svetovnem merilu. Med drugim je zahteval, da Komis` a popravi napake, storjene pri oceni predloga projekta.
The Commission argued that the experts evaluating the oTshore wind project proposal considered that the limited information provided about the Danish partner was not convincing.
Komis` a je odgovorila, da so strokovnjaki, ki so ocenjevali predlog projekta, menili, da skopi podatki o danskem partnerju niso dovolj prepriÏljivi.
In his decision, the Ombudsman recalled that his task was not to re-evaluate the project proposal in question but to investigate whether there had been a manifest error of evaluation by the Commission.
V svoji odloÏbi je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic opomnil, da njegova naloga ni ponovno oceniti zadevnega predloga projekta, temveÏ raziskati, ali je Komis` a pri oceni naredila zelo oÏitno napako.
The Ombudsman found that the project proposal’s rather brief information on the Danish partner contained no reference to the company being a specialist or world leader in the relevant field.
Ugotovil je, da v precej skopih podatkih o danskem partnerju v predlogu projekta ni bilo navedeno, da je podjetje specializirano ali vodilno na tem podroÏju v svetovnem merilu.
The Ombudsman took the view that, even assuming that the complainant was correct as regards the Danish partner’s standing, the complainant had not demonstrated that the Commission or its experts who carried out the evaluation of the proposal should have been aware of the partner’s standing regardless of the information provided in the proposal.
Varuh je ocenil, da pritožnik, Ïetudi je imel prav glede ugleda podjetja, Komis` i in njenim ocenjevalcem ni nakazal, da bi se morali ne glede na posredovane podatke seznaniti z ugledom podjetja.