natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
The complainant participated in open competition COM/B/1015 (B5/B4 Euratom nuclear inspectors) organised in 1996 by the Commission for nationals from the new Member States.
Pritožnik je sodeloval na javnem razpisu COM/B/1015 (B5/B4 jedrski inšpektorji Euratoma), ki ga je Komisij a organizirala leta 1996 za državljane novih držav članic.
When appointed in May 2000, the complainant was graded B4, which was the maximal grading foreseen by this competition.
Ob imenovanju maja 2000 je bil pritožnik postavljen v razred B4, najvišji razred, ki jo je ta razpis še predvideval.
The complainant has a very long working experience and an education of university engineer, which is higher than the one needed for the post.
Pritožnik ima dolgoletne delovne izkušnje in izobrazbo univerzitetnega inženirja, kar je višja izobrazba od predpisane za to delovno mesto.
According to the complainant, by being appointed to a B4 grade post, he was discriminated against for the following reasons:
Pritožnik trdi, da je njegova uvrstitev v razred B4 primer diskriminacij e zaradi naslednjih razlogov:
Firstly, the Commission applied a higher age-limit in this competition, as it was organised for nationals from the new member states.
Prvič: Komisij a je na tem razpisu določila višjo starostno mejo, ker je bil razpisan za državljane novih držav članic.
The complainant observes that a wider grade range (B5-B1) should thus have been applied, to take into account persons with a longer working experience.
Pritožnik trdi, da bi moral biti zaradi tega razpon ponujenih razredov večji (B5 - B1), da bi upoštevali tudi osebe z dolgoletnimi delovnimi izkušnjami.
Secondly, approximately one year earlier there were three open competitions for nationals of the new member states (with an economics/administrative or practical computer background – COM/B/951, COM/B/952 and EUR/B/72) in which the grading ranged from B1 to B5.
Drugič: približno eno leto prej so bili organizirani trije javni razpisi za državljane novih držav članic (z izkušnjami na ekonomskem/upravnem ali računalniškem področju - COM/B/951, COM/B/952 in EUR/B/72), na katerih je bil razpon stopenj od B1 do B5. Spomladi 2002 je Euratom s seznama
Decisions following an inquiry recommendation in a similar case of alleged discrimination in the grading of fishery inspectors from various competitions.
Tam je Komisij a v podobnem primeru zatrjevane diskriminacij e pri ocenjevanju ribiških inšpektorjev na različnih izbirnih postopkih sprejela priporočilo Varuha.
On 25 May 2002 he was informed that the Commission had rejected his request for reconsidering his grading.
25. maja 2002 je bil obveščen, da je Komisij a zavrnila zahtevek po ponovnem preverjanju njegove uvrstitve.
In its reply the Commission stated that case 109/98/ME concerned temporary agents and that there was no need for B3/B2 or B1 officials for the Euratom competition.
V odgovoru je Komisij a izjavila, da se primer 109/98/ME tiče začasnih uslužbencev in da v izbirnem postopku Euratom niso potrebovali nobenih uradnikov razreda B3/B2 oziroma B1.
The complainant therefore lodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman claiming that, according to the principle of equal treatment, he should receive a higher grading.
Pritožnik se je zato pritožil Varuhu in trdi, da bi moral biti v skladu z načelom enakopravne obravnave postavljen v višji razred.
In its opinion, the Commission first recalled the facts of the case.
V svojem mnenju je Komisij a najprej obnovila dejstva tega primera.
The complainant had been successful in competition COM/B/1015 (OJ C 179 A of 22 June 1996) organised for nuclear inspectors at the B 5/4 level and limited to Austrian, Finnish and Swedish nationals.
Pritožnik je uspešno opravil teste na izbirnem postopku COM/B/1015 (UL C 179 A z dne 22. junij a 1996) za jedrske inšpektorje za razreda B 5/4, ki je bil omejen na avstrijske, finske in švedske državljane.
The reserve list of successful candidates was established on 17 July 1997.
Rezervni seznam uspešnih kandidatov je bil sestavljen 17. julij a 1997.
The complainant was recruited in May 2000, a er the end of the enlargement period, and, on basis of his professional experience, was classified in B4 step 3, the statutory maximum for the career bracket.
Pritožnika so zaposlili maja 2000, po koncu širitve. Na podlagi delovnih izkušenj je bil razporejen v plačilni razred B4, stopnja 3, kar je za to karierno skupino najvišji možni razred.
In his complaint, the complainant makes reference to other enlargement competitions that were organised at the B1 and B 3/2 levels and to the decision 109/98/ME that was applied to three temporary agents employed as fishery inspectors.
Pritožnik omenja v pritožbi tudi druge izbirne postopke za razrede B3/2 in B1 v času širitve ter Sklep 109/98/ME, ki zadeva tri začasne uslužbence, ki so bili zaposleni kot ribiški inšpektorji.
He also mentions the competitions that were organised at the time of the Spanish and Portuguese enlargement.
Omenja tudi izbirne postopke v času španskega in portugalskega pristopa.
At the time of an enlargement, the Commission has to strike a balance between the needs of the service and the requirements to recruit nationals from the new Member States at different levels within the career structure.
Pri širitvi mora Komisij a najti ravnotežje med potrebami institucij e in zahtevami za zaposlitev državljanov novih držav članic na različnih ravneh znotraj karierne strukture.
For these reasons, the Commission organised competitions at the B1, B3/2 and B5/4 levels covering more general fields (general administration, information technology, accountancy, public finances and audit, and archives, documentation and library).
Zaradi tega je Komisij a pripravila izbirne postopke za razrede B1, B3/2 in B5/4, ki so pokrivali širša področja (splošna uprava, informacijska tehnologija, računovodstvo, javne finance in revizija, ter arhivistika, dokumentacijska služba in knjižničarstvo).
As a general measure, higher age limits were allowed for the Austrian, Finnish and Swedish enlargement competitions.
Za avstrijske, finske in švedske razpise v času pristopa so bile starostne meje na splošno višje.
In organising these competitions, it was foreseen that the majority of successful candidates would be found in the B 5/4 competitions.
Pri pripravi teh izbirnih postopkov je bilo predvideno, da bo večina uspešnih kandidatov prišla iz izbirnih postopkov za razreda B 5/4.
In addition to these competitions, more specialised ones were organised at the B5/4 level for laboratory technicians, nurses and nuclear inspectors.
Poleg teh razpisov so bili za razreda B 5/4 pripravljeni tudi bolj specializirani razpisi za laboratorijske tehnike, zdravstveno osebje in jedrske inšpektorje.
It should be noted that the same approach was adopted at the time of the Spanish and Portuguese enlargement.
Povedati je treba, da je bil enak pristop uporabljen tudi v času španskega in portugalskega pristopa.
The parallel drawn by the complainant with the case of the three fishery inspectors cannot be considered as being comparable.
Vzporednice s primerom treh ribiških inšpektorjev, ki jih omenja pritožnik, niso ustrezne.
In this case, the Commission, whilst maintaining that it had acted in complete legality, exceptionally accepted, in view of the differing levels of selections for fi fishery inspectors, the friendly solution proposed by the European Ombudsman. Furthermore the
V tej zadevi je Komisij a, čeprav je vseskozi delovala popolnoma zakonito, zaradi različnih ravni izborov ribiških inšpektorjev, izjemoma sprejela kompromisno rešitev, ki jo je predlagal Evropski varuh.
Commission noted that the complainant does not mention if he even applied to participate in one of the more general competitions organised at the B1 or B 3/2 levels.
Nadalje je Komisij a pripomnila, da pritožnik ne omenja, če se je sploh prijavil na katerega od splošnih razpisov, pripravljenih za razrede B1 ali B3/2.
The Commission concluded that the complainant’s classification was correct on the basis of the competition
Komisij a zaključuje s oceno, da je bila uvrstitev pritožnika na podlagi razpisa ustrezna.
The complainant stated that the requirement – to which the Commission refers – to recruit nationals from the new Member States at different levels within the career structure, is to ensure that experienced stafffrom new Member States will get a grading that rewards experience acquired before the member state joined the EU and before the individual could get a post within the EU.
Pritožnik je izjavil, da zahteva Komisij e o zaposlovanju državljanov novih držav članic na različnih ravneh znotraj karierne strukture zagotavlja, da je izkušeno osebje iz novih držav članic uvrščeno na ustrezna mesta, ki upoštevajo izkušnje, ki so bile pridobljene, še preden je država članica vstopila v EU in še preden se je bilo možno zaposliti znotraj EU.
The complainant observed that the explanation given by the Commission for its decision to apply this rule to eight competitions and restrict three other competitions to the grade B5/B4 is that more general fields would necessitate a wider grading whereas more specialised fields, like the complainant’s one of nuclear inspector, would have a narrow grading. The complainant stated
Po pritožnikovih besedah je Komisij a svojo odločitev, da to pravilo uporabi pri osmih razpisih, tri druge razpise pa omeji na razreda B5/B4, utemeljila z argumentom, da bolj splošna področja zahtevajo širši razpon razredov, bolj specializirana področja, kot je tudi pritožnikovo področje
Decisions following an inquiry that this explanation is not consistent and not a relevant objective ground to justify a difference in treatment.
Sklepi preiskav jedrskih inšpektorjev, pa ožji razpon razredov. Pritožnik je izjavil, da ta razlaga ni dosledna in to da ni objektiven razlog za razliko v obravnavanju, zato je to kršitev načela enakosti.
The complainant further observed that the “needs of the service” mentioned by the Commission for restricting the grading to B5/B4 for some enlargement competitions can not be considered as a relevant objective ground for justifying a difference in treatment.
Pritožnik je še pripomnil, da “potrebe institucije”, ki jih omenja Komisij a kot razlog za omejevanje razpona razredov na B5/B4 pri nekaterih razpisih v času širitve, niso objektiven razlog za razliko v obravnavanju.
The complainant mentioned that Euratom continuously employs experienced inspectors at B1/B2 grades and that all services benefit from experienced employees.
Pritožnik je omenil, da Euratom stalno zaposluje izkušene inšpektorje v razreda B1/B2 in da so izkušeni uslužbenci koristni v vsakem okolju.
One cannot claim that there was a larger need for B1/B2 officers in other services than there was in Euratom.
Ni mogoče trditi, da so imele druge službe večjo potrebo po uradnikih razredov B1/B2 kot Euratom.
The complainant stated that the Commission had accepted the Ombudsman’s friendly solution in case 109/98/ME and agreed to re-grade the fishery inspectors, because they had an exceptionally long working experience.
Pritožnik je izjavil, da je Komisij a v primeru 109/98/ME sprejela priporočilo Varuha in ponovno ocenila ribiške inšpektorje na podlagi njihovih dolgoletnih delovnih izkušenj.
The complainant therefore asked the Commission to do the same for him, as he had also an exceptionally long working experience.
Pritožnik je zato pozval Komisijo, naj enako ukrepa v njegovem primeru, saj ima tudi sam dolgoletne delovne izkušnje.
Because of his relatively high age, he has been put in a particularly bad position due to the discriminatory grading policy of the Commission.
Glede na svojo višjo starost se je zaradi nepravične ocenjevalne politike Komisij e znašel v posebej slabem položaju.
The claim for a higher grading than B4
Zahteva za uvrstitev v razred, višji od B4
1.1 The complainant claims that, according to the principle of equal treatment, he should receive a higher grading than B 4.
1.1 Pritožnik trdi, da bi po načelu enakopravnega obravnavanja moral biti uvrščen v razred, višji od B4.
To support his claim, the complainant observes that the Commission applied a higher age-limit in this competition, as it was organised for nationals from the new member states, and that approximately one year earlier there were three open competitions for nationals of the new member states (with an economics/administrative or practical computer background – COM/B/951, COM/B/952 and EUR/B/72) in which the grading ranged from B1 to B5.
V podporo svoji zahtevi pritožnik ugotavlja, da je Komisij a na tem izbirnem postopku določila višjo starostno mejo, ker je bil razpisan za državljane novih držav članic, in da so bili približno eno leto prej organizirani trije javni razpisi za državljane novih držav članic (z izkušnjami na ekonomskem/upravnem ali računalniškem področju - COM/B/951, COM/B/952 in EUR/B/72), na katerih je bil razpon razredov od B1 do B5.
The complainant also refers to the Ombudsman’s decision in case 109/98/ME.
Pritožnik tudi opozarja na Sklep Varuha v primeru 109/98/ME.
1.2 The Commission observes that, at the time of an enlargement, it has to strike a balance between the needs of the service and the requirements to recruit nationals from the new Member States at different levels within the career structure.
1.2 Komisij a je izjavila, da mora pri širitvi najti ravnotežje med potrebami institucij e in zahtevami za zaposlitev državljanov novih držav članic na različnih ravneh znotraj karierne strukture.
For the nationals of the new Member States, the Commission organised competitions at the B1, B3/2 and B5/4 levels covering more general fi fields (general administration, information technology, accountancy, public finances and audit, and archives, documentation and library).
Za državljane novih držav članic je Komisij a pripravila izbirne postopke za razrede B1, B3/2 in B5/4, ki so pokrivali širša področja (splošna uprava, informacijska tehnologija, računovodstvo, javne finance in revizija, ter arhivistika, dokumentacijska služba in knjižničarstvo).
In addition to these competitions, the Commission organised more specialised ones at the B5/4 level for laboratory technicians, nurses and nuclear inspectors.
Poleg teh razpisov so bili na stopnji B 5/4 organizirani tudi bolj specializirani razpisi za laboratorijske tehnike, zdravstveno osebje in jedrske inšpektorje.
The Commission further pointed out that the parallel drawn by the complainant with the case of the three fishery inspectors cannot be considered as being comparable.
Komisij a je opozorila tudi, da vzporednice s primerom treh ribiških inšpektorjev, ki jih omenja pritožnik, niso ustrezne.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the principle of equality of treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations is a general rule forming part of the law applicable to the Community civil service.
1.3 Varuh ugotavlja, da je načelo enakosti obravnave, določeno v členu 5(3) Kadrovskih predpisov, splošno pravilo in del zakonodaje, ki velja za javno upravo Skupnosti.
Discrimination contrary to that rule occurs where identical or comparable situations are treated in an unequal way and the discrimination is not objectively justified19. ed19.
Diskriminacij a, ki nasprotuje temu pravilu, pomeni neenako obravnavanje enakih ali podobnih primerov brez objektivnih razlogov za tako obravnavanje19.
1.4 In case 109/98/ME – to which the complainant refers -, the Ombudsman found that there was a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, because fishery inspectors had been recruited in grades B5/B4, whereas a) other fishery inspectors already employed by the Commission on basis of earlier competitions were placed in grades B3, B2 and B1, and b) a newly published competition foresaw the recruitment of fishery inspectors in grades B3/B2.
1.4 V primeru 109/98/ME, na katerega opozarja pritožnik, je Varuh odločil, da je bilo kršeno načelo enakosti obravnave, ker so bili ribiški inšpektorji uvrščeni v razreda B5/B4. Pri tem pa a) so bili drugi ribiški inšpektorji, ki jih je Komisij a zaposlila na podlagi prejšnjih razpisov, uvrščeni v razrede B3, B2 in B1, in b) novi razpis je predvideval zaposlitev ribiških inšpektorjev v razredih B3/B2.
The complainant claims that the Ombudsman’s findings in this case should be applied by analogy to his own case.
Pritožnik zahteva, da bi morali sklepi Varuha v tem primeru po analogiji veljati tudi za njegov primer.
1.5 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s explanation of the difference in grading foreseen for specialised and general B-grade competitions appears reasonable.
1.5 Varuh je mnenja, da so razlage Komisij e o razlikah ocenjevanja, predvidenih za splošne in specializirane razpise kategorij e B, očitno razumne.
Furthermore, from the information available to the Ombudsman, there appears to be no indication that nuclear inspectors from different competitions would have been treated differently. The comparison drawn
Pritožnik na eni strani primerja zaposlovanje jedrskih inšpektorjev kategorij e B, na drugi strani pa zaposlovanje uradnikov kategorij e B z izkušnjami na ekonomskem/upravnem ali računalniškem
Decisions following an inquiry by the complainant concerns, on the one hand, the recruitment of nuclear inspectors in B grade, and on the other hand, the recruitment of B grade officials with an economics/administrative or practical computer background (COM/B/951, COM/B/952 and EUR/B/72).
Sklepi preiskav področju (COM/B/951, COM/B/952 in EUR/B/72).
It appears that these situations are not comparable and can therefore not be considered as a basis for a judgement on the respect of the principle of equality of treatment.
Očitno ti primeri niso primerljivi med seboj in zato ne morejo biti podlaga za presojo o upoštevanju načela enakosti obravnave.
1.6 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman does not consider that the Commission’s decision on the complainant’s grading violates the principle of equality of treatment.
1.6 V teh okoliščinah Varuh ugotavlja, da odločitev Komisij e o oceni kandidata ne krši načela enakosti obravnavanja.
The Ombudsman therefore fi finds no maladministration by the Commission.
Varuh tako ne ugotavlja nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komisije. e.
REFUSAL OF A CONFIRMATORY APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS IN ARTICLE 226 PROCEDURE
ZAVRNITEV POTRDILNE PROŠNJE ZA JAVNI DOSTOP V OKVIRU POSTOPKA PO ČLENU 226
Decision on complaint 1437/2002/IJH against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1437/2002/IJH zoper Evropsko komisij o
In July 2002, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman against the Commission’s refusal of a confirmatory application for public access to a document.
Julij a 2002 je Varuh prejel pritožbo zoper Komisij o zaradi zavrnitve potrdilne prošnje za javni dostop do dokumenta.
The complainant had suffered financial loss in the Lloyd’s insurance market in the UK.
Pritožnik je utrpel finančno izgubo na trgu zavarovanj družbe Lloyd’s v Veliki Britaniji.
He fi led a complaint with the Commission against the UK authorities for failure to implement properly Directive 73/239.
Pri Komisij i je vložil pritožbo zoper oblasti v Veliki Britaniji, zaradi nepopolnega izvajanja Direktive 73/239.
The Commission investigated the complaint in its role as guardian of the Treaty.
Komisij a je kot varuhinja Pogodbe opravila preiskavo.
On 20 December 2001, the Commission sent a le er of formal notice to the UK government, in accordance with the procedure of Article 226 EC.
V skladu s postopkom, določenim v členu 226 ES, je 20. decembra 2001 vladi Velike Britanije poslala formalni opomin.
The complainant applied for public access to the le er of formal notice in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001.
Pritožnik je vložil prošnjo za javni dostop do formalnega opomina v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001.
The Commission refused the application on the grounds that disclosure of the le er could undermine the proper conduct of infringement procedures based on Article 226 EC.
Komisij a je prošnjo zavrnila, ker bi lahko objava tega pisma ogrozila pravilno izvedbo postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev na podlagi člena 226 ES.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant contests the Commission’s refusal of public access to the le er of formal notice and argues that the UK Treasury has stated that it has no objection to the le er being made public.
V pritožbi Varuhu pritožnik spodbija odločitev Komisije, ki je zavrnila javni dostop do formalnega opomina, in trdi, da je ministrstvo za finance Velike Britanije izjavilo, da ne nasprotuje objavi pisma.
The complainant emphasises that his complaint to the Ombudsman is confined to the question of public access and does not concern the Commission’s handling of his complaint against the UK authorities.
Pritožnik poudarja, da je njegova pritožba Varuhu omejena na vprašanje javnega dostopa in ne zadeva obravnavanja njegove pritožbe na Komisij i proti britanskim oblastem.
The Ombudsman understands that the complainant has also petitioned the European Parliament concerning the UK authorities and Lloyd’s.
Varuh je seznanjen tudi z dejstvom, da je pritožnik Evropskemu parlamentu poslal peticij o v zvezi z britanskimi oblastmi in družbo Lloyd’s.
The Commission’s opinion made, in summary, the following points:
Mnenje Komisij e v povzetku vsebuje naslednje točke:
In reply, the Director General of DG Internal Market sent the complainant a copy of the relevant press release and explained that disclosure of the le er of formal notice would undermine the conduct of the infringement investigation.
V odgovoru je generalni direktor Generalnega direktorata za notranji trg pritožniku poslal kopij o zadevne izjave za javnost in pojasnil, da bi objava formalnega opomina ogrozila potek preiskave za ugotavljanje kršitev.
This exception to the right of access is foreseen in Article 4 (2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001.
Izjemoma se pravice o dostopu ne da uveljavljati, kar je predvideno v tretji alinei člena 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001.
On 5 February 2002, the complainant made a confirmatory application, arguing that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Pritožnik je 5. februarja 2002 vložil potrdilno prošnjo, v kateri je trdil, da obstaja prevladujoč javni interes za razkritje.
At that stage, the Commission had not received the UK authorities’ reply to its le er of formal notice.
Na tej stopnji Komisij a še ni prejela odgovora britanskih oblasti na njen formalni opomin.
The Secretary General upheld the initial decision.
Generalni sekretar ni spremenil svoje prvotne odločitve.
The Lloyd’s case is very complicated and sensitive.
Primer družbe Lloyd’s je zapleten in občutljiv.
The Commission’s investigation into a possible infringement by the UK is still ongoing.
Preiskava Komisij e o možni kršitvi Velike Britanije še vedno poteka.
Disclosure of documents exchanged with the UK authorities would adversely affect the conduct of this investigation.
Razkritje dokumentov, izmenjanih z britanskimi oblastmi, bi ogrozilo potek te preiskave.
The Commission is currently examining new legislation introduced as part of a comprehensive reform of UK financial regulation under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Komisij a trenutno pregleduje novo zakonodajo, ki je del obsežne reforme finančne ureditve v Veliki Britaniji, ki jo je uvedel Zakon o finančnih storitvah in trgih 2000.
The Commission should not simply check whether the directive has been correctly transposed into national legislation, but rather whether national law is applied correctly.
Komisij a ne bi smela samo preveriti, ali je bila direktiva pravilno prenesena v nacionalno zakonodajo, ampak tudi, ali se nacionalna zakonodaja pravilno uporablja.
The ultimate objective is to ensure full compliance with Community law.
Končni cilj je zagotoviti polno skladnost z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
This process requires a climate of mutual confidence that would be jeopardised by disclosing the documents related to the investigation.
Ta proces pa zahteva medsebojno zaupanje, ki bi ga objava dokumentov, povezanih s preiskavo, resno ogrozila.