natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When examining an application, the Advisory Commi ee is bound by the text of the recruitment notice, which in the current case stipulated that candidates had to enclose, with their le er of application, a detailed curriculum vitae and evidence of their education, professional experience and current post.
Svetovalni odbor je pri preverjanju prijave vezan na besedilo objave zaposlitve, ki je v tem primeru določalo, da mora kandidat skupaj s prijavo priložiti tudi podroben življenjepis, potrdila o izobrazbi, delovnih izkušnjah in o trenutnem delovnem mestu.
When examining the complainant’s application, the Advisory Commi ee found no documentary evidence of the statements made in the complainant’s CV.
Pri preverjanju pritožnikove prijave svetovalni odbor ni našel dokumentov, ki bi potrjevali navedbe v življenjepisu in zato ni mogel oceniti pritožnikove prijave.
Decisions following an inquiry to verify whether the applicant meets the conditions in the recruitment notice.
Sklepi preiskav pogoje, navedene v objavi za zaposlitev.
According to firmly established case law, neither the administration, nor the Commi ee, is required to conduct inquiries with a view to verifying whether the applicants meet all the conditions in the contract notice.
V skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso nista niti uprava niti odbor obvezana poizvedovati, da preverita ali prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje pogodbenega sporočila.
The complainant was invited to submit observations on the European Parliament’s opinion.
Pritožnik je bil povabljen, da poda svojo oceno glede mnenja Parlamenta, vendar tega očitno ni storil.
Alleged lack of service-mindedness
Zatrjevanje pomanjkanja profesionalnega pristopa
1.1 The complainant alleges that the European Parliament, in dealing with his application for recruitment, has not been service-minded enough, since it did not contact him to request more documentation.
1.1 Pritožnik navaja, da Evropski parlament v obravnavanju njegove prijave za zaposlitev ni pokazal dovolj profesionalnega pristopa, ker ga ni pozval k predložitvi dodatnih dokumentov.
1.2 The European Parliament argues that the Advisory Commi ee, when examining an application, is bound by the text of the recruitment notice, which in the current case stipulated that candidates had to enclose, with their le er of application, evidence of their education, professional experience and current post.
1.2 Evropski parlament ugovarja, da je svetovalni odbor pri preverjanju prijave vezan na tekst objave za zaposlitev, ki je v tem primeru določal, da mora kandidat prijavi priložiti tudi podroben življenjepis, potrdila o izobrazbi, delovnih izkušnjah in trenutnem delovnem mestu.
The Parliament also points out that according to firmly established case law, it is not required to conduct inquiries with a view to verify whether the applicants meet all the conditions in the contract notice.
Parlament prav tako poudarja, da v skladu z uveljavljeno sodno prakso ni treba poizvedovati, da se preveri ali prosilec izpolnjuje vse pogoje iz pogodbenega sporočila.
ANINQUIRY stemming from European citizenship5 and that good administration includes, as the complainant points out, the requirement to be service-minded.6 In considering the application of the principles
Upoštevajoč uporabo načel dobrega upravljanja v tem primeru, Varuh opozarja, da je zaposlovanje v institucij e skupnosti urejeno s posebnimi pravili, določenimi v kadrovskih predpisih ter sodni praksi sodišč Skupnosti.
1.4 According to the case law, a candidate in a competition must provide the Selection Board with all the information and documents necessary to enable it to check that the candidate satisfies the conditions laid down in the notice of competition.7 The Selection Board cannot be required to make enquiries itself in order to ensure that candidates satisfy all these conditions.8 Moreover, the Selection Board is bound by the wording of the notice of competition.9 In this case, the published notice stated that, by the closing date, candidates must have produced the supporting documents for their diplomas and/or professional experience.
1.4 Skladno s sodno prakso mora kandidat izbirni komisij i v postopku izbora priskrbeti vse potrebne informacij e in dokumente, da lahko preveri, ali kandidat ustreza pogojem, določenim v objavi razpisa7. Od izbirne komisij e se ne more zahtevati, da sama poizveduje, ali kandidat izpolnjuje vse pogoje8.
In these circumstances, for Parliament to ask a candidate for more documentation could be inequality of treatment as regards, for instance, those candidates who complied with the notice of competition.
Izbirno komisij o obvezuje tudi besedilo razpisa9. V tem primeru je bilo v objavi navedeno, da morajo kandidati do izteka roka predložiti potrebne dokumente k diplomam in/ali poklicnim izkušnjam.
The Ombudsman therefore considers that, in the present case, the European Parliament has respected the principles of good administration and therefore finds no maladministration.
V teh okoliščinah bi dejstvo, da Parlament kandidata pozove k dopolnitvi dokumentacije, lahko pomenilo neenako obravnavanje prijavljenih kandidatov.
In view of this finding, the complainant’s claim cannot be sustained.
Varuh zato meni, da je Evropski parlament v tem primeru spoštoval načela dobrega upravljanja in zato ni našel nepravilnosti.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ugotavlja, da Evropski parlament ni ravnal nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Člen 41 Listine o temeljnih človekovih pravicah Evropske unije. e.
Article 12 (1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour adopted by the European Parliament in its resolution C5-0438/2000 of 6 September 2001 (available on the Ombudsman’s website: h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Člen 12 (1) Kodeksa dobrega ravnanja za javne uslužbence, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament v resolucij i C5-0438/2000, z dne 6. septembra 2001 (dostopnega na spletni strani Varuha: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
3.1.2 The Council of the European Union
3.1.2 Svet Evropske unij e
ACCESS TO EUROPEAN CONVENTION AGENDAS AND MINUTES
DOSTOP DO DNEVNEGA REDA IN ZAPISNIKOV EVROPSKE KONVENCIJ E
Decision on complaint 1795/2002/IJH as it relates to the Council of the European Union
Sklep o pritožbi 1795/2002/IJH v zvezi s Svetom Evropske unij e
In October 2002, Mr V. made a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) against the European Convention and the Council of the European Union.
Oktobra 2002 je gospod V. v imenu nevladne organizacij e za promocijo evropskega državljanstva (ECAS) pri Varuhu vložil pritožbo proti Evropski konvencij i in Svetu Evropske unije. e.
The present decision deals only with the complaint against the Council.
Ta sklep obravnava le pritožbo proti Svetu.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint against the European Convention is the subject of a separate decision (see section 3.1.5).
Preiskava Varuha glede pritožbe proti Evropski konvencij i je predmet samostojnega sklepa (glej oddelek 3.1.5).
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnika so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
In May 2002, the complainant applied to the Council for access to the agendas and minutes of the Praesidium of the European Convention.
Pritožnik je maja 2002 pri Svetu zaprosil za dostop do dnevnega reda in zapisnikov delovnega predsedstva Evropske konvencije.
The Council did not reply within the 15 days laid down by Regulation 1049/2001.
Svet ni odgovoril v roku 15 dni, določenem v Uredbi 1049/2001.
On 19 June 2002, the complainant submi ed a confirmatory application, to which the Council replied on 12 July 2002.
Pritožnik je 19. junij a 2002 predložil potrdilno prošnjo, na katero je Svet odgovoril 12. julij a 2002.
The reply stated, amongst other things, that the European Convention is a body distinct from the Council; that its documents are outside the scope of application of Regulation 1049/2001; and that the General Secretariat had forwarded the application to the Secretariat of the European Convention.
Med drugim je bilo v odgovoru navedeno, da Evropska konvencij a ni isti organ kot Svet ter da za dokumente Evropske konvencij e Uredba 1049/2001 ne velja, generalni sekretariat pa je posredoval prošnjo sekretariatu Evropske konvencije. e.
The complainant expresses his complaint to the Ombudsman in the form of requests to investigate, ascertain or establish certain ma ers.
Pritožnik je vložil pritožbo pri Varuhu v obliki zahteve po preiskavi, seznanitvi ali ugotovitvijo določenih dejstev.
In summary, the complaint contains the following allegations against the Council:
Pritožba v povzetku vsebuje naslednje očitke proti Svetu:
The Council failed to reply to the complainant’s initial application for access to the agendas and minutes of the Praesidium of the European Convention within the 15 days laid down by Regulation 1049/2001 and failed to inform him of his rights of appeal;
Svet ni v roku 15 dni odgovoril na začetno prošnjo pritožnika za dostop do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva Evropske konvencije, kot to določa Uredba 1049/2001 in ga ni obvestil o pravici do pritožbe;
The documents concerned are in the Council’s possession and the Council should therefore give access to them in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001.
Zahtevani dokumenti so v posesti Sveta, ki bi moral omogočiti dostop do njih v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001.
The Council’s opinion
Stališče Sveta
In summary, the Council’s opinion made the following points:
Stališče Sveta v povzetku vsebuje naslednje točke:
The Convention was created by the European Council rather than by the Council, which is not represented as an institution in the Convention.
Konvencij e ni ustvaril Svet, temveč Evropski svet, ki v Konvencij i ni zastopan kot institucij a.
The Council provides certain facilities to the Convention such as offi ce space and, like the European Parliament and the Commission, staff on secondment.
Svet zagotavlja Konvencij i določene ugodnosti, kot so pisarniški prostori in tudi začasno dodeljeno osebje, tako kot Evropski parlament ter Komisij a.
The Praesidium of the Convention operates in a completely independent way from the Council and its General Secretariat.
Predsedstvo Evropske konvencij e deluje popolnoma neodvisno od Sveta in generalnega sekretariata.
The fact that the Convention Secretariat works on the premises of the Council does not mean that the documents produced by the Convention are Council documents or even within its cognisance.
Dejstvo, da sekretariat Konvencij e deluje v prostorih Sveta, ne pomeni, da so dokumenti Konvencij e tudi dokumenti Sveta ali celo v njegovi pristojnosti. Sekretariat Konvencij e je neodvisen od generalnega sekretariata Sveta.
It is under the autonomous direction of a Secretary General who is not a member of the Council’s staffand who is under the authority of the President of the Convention.
Čeprav je Svet obveščen o napredku Konvencije, dnevni redi in zapisniki delovnega predsedstva Evropske konvencij e niso na razpolago Svetu ali generalnemu sekretariatu.
As regards the allegation of delay in replying to the complainant and failure to inform of rights of appeal, the Council pointed out that the complainant’s original request was sent by email on 29 April 2002.
Sklepi preiskav generalni sekretariat Sveta elektronsko pošto pragmatično in kar najhitreje posredoval sekretariatu Konvencije. e.
The General Secretariat’s computer system sent an automatic acknowledgement of receipt to the complainant upon receipt of his e-mail.
Računalniški sistem generalnega sekretariata je avtomatično poslal potrdilo o prejemu elektronske pošte.
This automatic reply did not contain a reference to the right to make a confirmatory application.
Avtomatični odgovor ni vseboval sklicevanja na pravico do potrdilne prošnje.
In the present case such a reference would not have made sense, since the complainant was informed that the Council does not hold the documents.
V tem primeru takšno sklicevanje ne bi bilo smiselno, ker je bil pritožnik obveščen, da Svet nima teh dokumentov.
Suggesting that a confirmatory application in the Council could possibly lead to another conclusion would have been misleading.
Navajanje, da bi lahko potrdilna prošnja Svetu vodila k drugačnemu zaključku, bi bilo zavajajoče.
In its reply to the confirmatory application, the Council indeed failed to inform the complainant of the remedies open to him.
Svet v svojem odgovoru na potrdilno prošnjo res ni obvestil pritožnika o možnih pravnih sredstvih.
The Council General Secretariat has taken steps to avoid this administrative omission recurring.
Generalni sekretariat Sveta je zato sprejel ukrepe, da bi se takšna opustitev upravnega dejanja ne ponovila.
The complainant considers that Council’s opinion clarified the relationship between the Institution and the European Convention by explaining that Council does not hold the documents requested.
Pritožnik meni, da je s pojasnilom, da Svet nima zahtevanih dokumentov, pojasnjeno razmerje med institucij o in Evropsko konvencijo.
For this reason, the complainant acknowledges that the complaint is unfounded on this point.
Zato pritožnik prizna, da je njegova pritožba v tej točki neutemeljena.
The complainant accepts that the Council took a pragmatic approach in forwarding the complaint to the Convention Secretariat and that the Council Secretariat’s responded promptly in accordance with Article 7 (1) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Pritožnik verjame, da je Svet ravnal pragmatično, ko je posredoval pritožbo sekretariatu Konvencij e in, da je sekretariat Sveta takoj odgovoril, v skladu s členom 7 (1) Uredbe 1049/2001.
It would have been helpful, however, if the Council had sent a copy to the complainant.
Vseeno pa bi bilo v pomoč, če bi bil Svet poslal kopij o pritožniku.
As regards the failure to inform about remedies, the complainant stated that he acknowledges and appreciates the Council’s General Secretariat efforts to avoid this recurring.
Kar zadeva opustitev pouka o pravnih sredstvih je pritožnik navedel, da priznava in ceni trud generalnega sekretariata Sveta, da bi se to ne ponovilo.
As an advisory and advocacy service for NGOs and individuals with the EU Institutions, ECAS emphasises that it is of utmost importance for citizens to know their rights.
Kot svetovalna in odvetniška služba za nevladne organizacij e in posameznike v razmerju do institucij EU, ECAS poudarja, da je izredno pomembno, da državljani poznajo svoje pravice. V telefonskem pogovoru s službo Varuha 7. marca 2003 je osebje ECAS-a pojasnilo, da je pritožnik z odgovorom Sveta zadovoljen.
The allegation of late reply to an application for access to documents and failure to inform of remedies
Očitek, da je bil odgovor na prošnjo za dostop do dokumentov poslan pozno ter, da ni bil dan pouk o pravnih sredstvih
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Council failed to reply to his initial application for access to the agendas and minutes of the Praesidium of the European Convention within the 15 days laid down by Regulation 1049/2001 and failed to inform him of his rights of appeal.
1.1 Pritožnik zatrjuje, da svet ni odgovoril na njegovo začetno prošnjo za dostop do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov delovnega predsedstva Evropske konvencij e v roku 15 dni, kot to določa Uredba 1049/2001 in ga ni obvestil o pravici do pritožbe.
In its reply to the confirmatory application, the Council indeed failed to inform the complainant of the remedies open to him.
Svet v svojem odgovoru na potrdilno prošnjo sicer res ni poučil pritožnika o možnih pravnih sredstvih.
The Council General Secretariat has taken steps to avoid this administrative omission recurring.
Generalni sekretariat Sveta je ukrepal, da bi se izognil ponovni opustitvi tega upravnega dejanja.
1.3 The evidence available to the Ombudsman is that the Council made a genuine effort to deal promptly and effectively with the complainant’s application.
1.3 Dokazi Varuha kažejo, da si je Svet zares prizadeval za hitro in učinkovito obravnavo pritožnikove prošnje. Priznal je opustitev pouka o možnih pravnih sredstvih in ukrepal, da bi se v prihodnosti to ne ponovilo.
The Ombudsman understands that the complainant is satisfied with the Council’s response.
Varuh šteje, da je pritožnik zadovoljen z odgovorom Sveta in zato meni, da je bil primer rešen s strani institucije. e.
The allegation that the documents are in the Council’s possession
Sveta in potrjuje, da je pritožba v tem delu neutemeljena.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Zato varuh v tem delu pritožbe ne najde nepravilnosti.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Council.
Varuh na podlagi rezultatov preiskave ugotavlja, da Svet ni ravnal nepravilno in zato primer zaključuje.
3.1.3 The European Commission
3.1.3 Evropska komisij a
LIFE PROGRAMME: COMMISSION’S REFUSAL TO COMPLETE PAYMENT OF A PROJECT
PROGRAM LIFE: ODKLONITEV POPOLNEGA PLAČILA PROJEKTA S STRANI KOMISIJ E
Decision on complaint 1826/2001/JMA against the European Commission
Sklep o pritožbi 1826/2001/JMA zoper Evropsko komisij o
In June 1996, the complainant’s organisation (CTFC) submi ed a proposal to the Commission, under the LIFE programme, to carry out a project for the development of edible mushrooms in the framework of afforestation initiatives (ref.: LIFE/ ENV/E/512).
Junij a 1996 je pritožnikova organizacij a (CTFC) vložila predlog pri Komisij i, da v okviru programa LIFE izvede projekt za razvoj užitnih gob, v okviru pobud za pogozdovanje (sklic: LIFE/ENV/E/512).
CTFC was to develop the project in cooperation with a number of individual forestry owners.
Namen CTFC je bil razviti projekt v sodelovanju s številnimi individualnimi lastniki gozdov. Decembra 1996 je Komisij a predlog podprla.
CTFC subsequently received Community assistance of 208.749,58 €.
CTFC je nato prejel pomoč Skupnosti v višini 208.749,58 evrov.
In October and November 1997, the complainant held several discussions with the Commission services concerning how the project’s budget should reflect the expenses incurred by individual forestry owners.
Pritožnik je oktobra in novembra 1997 imel več razgovorov s službami Komisij e v zvezi s tem, kako naj proračun projekta odraža stroške individualnih lastnikov gozdov.
As a result of these discussions, it was decided to define the relationship between CTFC and third party forestry owners through individual agreements, drawn up on the basis of a standard agreement.
Rezultat pogovorov je bila odločitev, da se z individualnimi sporazumi določi razmerje med CTFC in tretjimi lastniki gozdov, na podlagi standardnega sporazuma.
These agreements were to spell out both the areas of cooperation between the different parties and the budget implications of their work.
V sporazumih bi podrobno določili tako področja sodelovanja med različnimi strankami in finančne posledice njihovega dela za proračun.
On 30 October 1997, the complainant faxed the standard agreement to the Commission official in charge of the financial aspects of the project.
Pritožnik je uradniku Komisije, odgovornemu za finančne vidike projekta, 30. oktobra 1997 po faksu poslal standardni sporazum.
On 4 November 1997, the contract was also faxed to Mr dB, the Commission official generally responsible to monitor and evaluate the project.
Pogodba je bila 4. novembra 1997 po faksu poslana tudi gospodu dB., uradniku Komisije, splošno odgovornemu za nadzor in oceno projekta.
Following this communication, Mr dB phoned the complainant and approved the content of the standard agreement.
Na tej osnovi pritožnik očita, da (i) so ga službe Komisij e zavedle in niso ponudile potrebne pomoči in da (ii) je bil postopek Komisij e za izvedbo projekta nejasen in ni bil skladen s predpisi.
In the course of the conversation, Mr dB insisted that for the sake of efficiency, future contacts be made directly with him, and always by telephone.
Pritožnik zato zatrjuje, da (iii) bi morala Komisij a zadržati zahtevo po povračilu stroškov in izplačati zadnje plačilo za projekt, kakor tudi pripadajoče obresti.
In February 1999, the complainant submi ed the project’s intermediate report, in which the budget implications of the forestry owners’ work followed the model discussed with the Commission services in October and November 1997.
Niti Odločba Komisij e za zagotovitev finančne pomoči projektu (C896)/3058/final/0037) [odslej odločba], niti predlagani proračun, nista predvidela nikakršne vloge za lastnike gozdov kot tretjih oseb.
In June 1999, Mr dB phoned the complainant and requested that the expenses linked to the forestry owners’ work be consolidated and treated as external assistance.
Njihova vključenost v projekt je zato zahtevala predhodno spremembo odločbe in odobritev Komisij e za novo razmerje.
Despite the complainant’s initial reluctance to alter the agreed financial criteria, he was obliged to accept the changes as a condition for the release of the intermediate payment.
Čeprav je pritožnik 30. oktobra 1997 po faksu poslal osnutek sporazuma, z namenom ureditve delovnega odnosa med CTFC in lastniki gozdov, dokument ni bil nikoli formalno oddan Komisij i v odobritev, kot je to zahtevala odločba.
In October 1999, the complainant delivered the new version of the report to the Commission by hand.
Po oddaji vmesnega poročila februarja 1999 je pritožnik izrazil željo, da se stroške, nastale s strani lastnikov gozdov kot tretje stranke, vključi v proračun projekta.
The Commission made the intermediate payment in April 2000.
Komisij a je maja 2000 izplačala vmesno plačilo.
The Commission requested additional information in October 2000.
Končno poročilo je bilo prejeto 19. maja 2000.
Upon the receipt of the complainant’s reply, the institution sent him a fax dated 30 January 2001 questioning the way in which costs incurred by forestry owners had been reflected, and claiming their reimbursement.
Kljub temu, da so bili cilji projekta doseženi, njegova proračunska struktura in vsebina nista bila v skladu s pogoji odločbe, še posebno kar zadeva stroške, nastale zaradi lastnikov gozdov.
In the ensuing controversy, Mr dB declined any responsibility, and the Commission’s financial services were unwilling to meet the complainant.
Komisij a je navedla, da pritožnik ni mogel dokazati, da so bili stroški, nastali s strani lastnikov gozdov kot tretje stranke (147.867 evrov), dejansko izplačani, tako kot to zahteva člen 3(4) in 4(1) Odločbe.
On the basis of the above, the complainant alleges that (i) the Commission services misled him and did not provide the necessary assistance, and (ii) the procedure followed by the Commission for the handling of his project was unclear and did not comply with the applicable rules.
Komisij a je poudarila, da so določbe člena 3(3) Odločbe jasne in brezpogojne.
The complainant therefore claims (iii) that the Commission should halt its request for reimbursement and hand over the last payment for the project as well as the corresponding interests.
Dodala je še, da njene službe pritožnika gotovo niso napeljale k prepričanju, da teh pravnih določil ni treba upoštevati.
Neither the Commission’s decision granting financial assistance to the project (C896)/3058/fi nal/0037) [henceforth the Decision] nor its proposed budget foresaw any role for third party forestry owners.
Komisij a je menila, da te informacij e ne predstavljajo nič novega in je pritožniku po faksu posredovala sporočilo, da znesek pomoči v višini teh stroškov ne bo izplačan, del že plačane pomoči (37.040 evrov) pa bo potrebno vrniti.
Their involvement in the project required therefore a prior amendment of the Decision and the Commission’s approval of the new relationship.
Institucij a je pritožniku dala na voljo krajše obdobje, da izrazi svoje stališče.