natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In cases where followup action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary, that is, where it is possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, or in cases where the maladministration is particularly serious, or has general implications, the Ombudsman normally makes a dra recommendation to the institution or body concerned.
V primerih, v katerih se zdijo nadaljnji ukrepi varuha človekovih pravic potrebni, torej kadar je še vedno mogoče, da zadevna institucij a nepravilnost odpravi, ali v primerih, v katerih so nepravilnosti posebno resne oziroma imajo splošne posledice, varuh človekovih pravic po navadi sestavi osnutek priporočila za to institucij o ali organ.
In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the institution or body must send a detailed opinion within three months.
V skladu s členom 3(6) statuta varuha človekovih pravic mora institucij a ali organ poslati podrobno mnenje v treh mesecih.
During 2007, eight drarecommendations were made.
Leta 2007 je bilo sestavljenih osem osnutkov priporočil.
In addition, seven dra recommendations from 2006 led to decisions in 2007.
Poleg tega je bilo leta 2007 z odločbami končanih še sedem osnutkov priporočil iz leta 2006.
Three cases were closed during the year when a dra recommendation was accepted by the institution.
Trije primeri so bili zaključeni med letom, ko je institucij a sprejela osnutek priporočila.
One case led to a special report to the European Parliament.
V enem primeru je bilo pripravljeno posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
At the end of 2007, eight drarecommendations were still under consideration, including one made in 2004 and one made in 2006.
Konec leta 2007 je bilo še vedno v obravnavi osem osnutkov priporočil, vključno z enim iz leta 2004 in enim iz leta 2006.
Special reports to the European Parliament
Posebna poročila Evropskemu parlamentu
If a Community institution or body fails to respond satisfactorily to a dra recommendation, the Ombudsman may send a special report to the European Parliament.
Če institucij a ali organ Skupnosti na osnutek priporočila ne da zadovoljivega odgovora, lahko varuh človekovih pravic pošlje posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
The special report may include recommendations.
Posebno poročilo lahko vključuje priporočila.
As was pointed out in the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report 1998, the possibility to present a special report to the European Parliament is of inestimable value for the Ombudsman’s work.
Kot je evropski varuh človekovih pravic poudaril v Letnem poročilu za leto 1998, je možnost predstavitve posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu neprecenljiva za njegovo delo.
A special report to the European Parliament is the last substantive step which the Ombudsman takes in dealing with a case, since the adoption of a resolution and the exercise of Parliament’s powers
Posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu je zadnji bistven korak, ki ga varuh človekovih pravic lahko naredi med obravnavo primera, saj so resolucije, ki jih sprejme Parlament, in pooblastila, ki jih izvaja, stvar politične presoje te institucije.
The Ombudsman naturally provides whatever information and assistance may be required by Parliament in dealing with a special report.
Varuh človekovih pravic seveda zagotovi vse informacij e in pomoč, ki jih Parlament potrebuje pri obravnavi posebnega poročila.
At a meeting of the Commi4 ee on Petitions on 12 October 2005, the Ombudsman undertook, in accordance with Rule 195(3) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, to appear before the Commi4 ee at his own request, whenever he presents a special report to Parliament.
Varuh se je na seji Odbora za peticije 12. oktobra 2005 zavezal, da bo v skladu s členom 195(3) poslovnika Parlamenta na svojo pobudo nastopil pred Odborom, kadar bo Parlamentu predstavil posebno poročilo.
One special report was submi4 ed to Parliament in 2007.
Leta 2007 je bilo Parlamentu predloženo eno posebno poročilo.
It involves case 3453/2005/GG in which the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for not dealing with a complaint concerning the European Working Time Directive.
Zadeva primer 3453/2005/GG, pri katerem je varuh človekovih pravic kritiziral Komisijo, ker ni obravnavala pritožbe glede evropske direktive o delovnem času.
DECISIONS CLOSING CASESIN2007
ODLOČBE,S KATERIMISO BILI ZAKLJUČENIPRIMERIVLETU2007
Decisions closing cases are normally published on the Ombudsman’s website (h4 p://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) in English and, if di� erent, the language of the complainant.
Vse odločbe, ki jih varuh sprejme po končani preiskavi, so običajno objavljene na spletni strani varuha človekovih pravic (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) v angleščini in jeziku pritožnika, če ta ni angleščina.
Chapter 3 contains summaries of 50 decisions closing inquiries.
V poglavju 3 so povzetki 50 odločb, s katerimi so se zaključile preiskave. Povzetki
The summaries reflect the range of subjects and of Community institutions and bodies covered by the total of 348 decisions closing inquiries in 2007, as well as the di� erent reasons for closure.
LETNO POROČILO 2007 prikazujejo različne teme ter institucij e in organe Skupnosti, zajete v skupno 348 odločbah, s katerimi so bile zaključene preiskave v letu 2007, ter različne razloge za zaključek.
They are indexed by case number, by subject ma4 er in terms of the field of Community competence involved, and by the type of maladministration alleged by the complainant.
Razvrščene so glede na številko primera, vsebino po zadevnih področjih pristojnosti Skupnosti in vrsto nepravilnosti, o kateri je pritožnik domneval.
The rest of this section of Chapter 2 analyses the most significant findings of law and fact contained in the decisions.
V nadaljevanju tega razdelka poglavja 2 so analizirane najpomembnejše pravne ugotovitve in dejstva iz odločb.
It is organised in terms of a thematic classification of the main subject ma4 er of inquiries, constructed around five main categories:
Razvrščeni so tematsko v pet glavnih kategorijglede na glavni predmet preiskave:
!Openness (including access to documents and information) and data protection;
• odprtost (vključno z dostopom do dokumentov in informacij ) ter varstvo podatkov;
!The European Commission as guardian of the Treaty;
Evropska komisija kot varuh Pogodbe;
!Tenders, contracts and grants;
• javni razpisi, pogodbe in podpora;
!Personnel ma4 ers, including recruitment;
• kadrovske zadeve, vključno z zaposlovanjem;
!Other ma4 ers.
• druge zadeve.
For example, issues of openness and public access are o en raised in complaints concerning recruitment or the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaty.
Na primer, vprašanja glede odprtosti in javnega dostopa se pogosto pojavljajo v pritožbah, ki zadevajo zaposlovanje ali vlogo Komisije kot varuha Pogodbe.
Openness, public access and the protection of personal data
Odprtost, javni dostop in varstvo osebnih podatkov
A high proportion (28%) of the allegations investigated in 2007 concerned lack of openness.
Velik delež (28 %) preiskanih obtožb v letu 2007 se je nanašal na pomanjkanje odprtosti.
Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union refers to decisions in the Union being taken “as openly as possible”, while Article 255 of the EC Treaty provides for a right of access to European Parliament, Council, and Commission documents.
V členu 1 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji je navedeno, da se odločitve v Uniji sprejemajo „čim bolj javno“, s členom 255 Pogodbe ES pa je zagotovljena pravica do dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
This right is governed by Regulation 1049/200110.
To pravico ureja Uredba 1049/200110.
Following owninitiative inquiries by the Ombudsman in 1996 and 1999, many other Community institutions and bodies have also adopted rules on access to documents.
Po varuhovih preiskavah na lastno pobudo v letih 1996 in 1999 so pravila o dostopu do dokumentov sprejele tudi številne druge institucij e in organi Skupnosti.
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 (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
Regulation 1049/2001 gives applicants a choice of remedy: they may challenge a refusal either in court proceedings under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, or by complaining to the Ombudsman.
V primeru 3269/2005/TN je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da člen 4(1)(b) Uredbe (zasebnost in integriteta posameznika) ne upravičuje odločitve Komisije, da v dokumentu izpusti imena industrijskih lobistov.
During 2007, the Ombudsman closed inquiries into eleven complaints concerning the application of Regulation 1049/2001, eight of which were against the Commission, two against OLAF and one against the Council.
Pri oblikovanju tega mnenja se je varuh opiral na osnovni dokument o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov in varstvu podatkov, ki ga je objavil evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov, s katerim se je varuh tudi posvetoval o tej zadevi.
One inquiry was closed into a complaint against the European Investment Bank concerning access to documents under its own rules.
V primeru 948/2006/BU je varuh človekovih pravic priznal, da je dvojna vloga Evropske investicijske banke kot bančne institucij e in organa Skupnosti razvidna iz določb njenega pravilnika o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov, kar zadeva poklicno obveznost bančne tajnosti.
Summaries of eight of the above cases are included in Chapter 3.
Vendar pa ta uredba ni veljala, ko je pritožnik zaprosil za dostop.
In case 3697/2006/PB, the Ombudsman found that the requirement to give “detailed reasons” for extending the deadline for reply to a confirmatory application under Regulation 1049/2001 was not met by a mere reference to the need to consult other Commission services.
V členu 11 Uredbe 1049/2001 je določeno, da mora vsaka institucij a omogočiti javni dostop do registra dokumentov, v katerega se nemudoma vpišejo napotila k dokumentom.
He further stated that the Commission should organise its administrative services so as to ensure that applications for access are registered no later than the first working day following receipt.
V primeru 2350/2005/GG je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da morajo biti institucij e EU, dokler nimajo na voljo lahko dostopnega ali dovolj popolnega registra, pripravljene, da državljanom na zahtevo zagotovijo priložnostne sezname, tudi če je njihova priprava precej obremenjujoča.
In case 668/2007/MHZ, the Ombudsman criticised the Commission for a delay of over eight months in publishing its annual report on the operation of Regulation 1049/2001 in 2005.
Pri uporabi Uredbe 1049/2001 za elektronske zbirke podatkov se zastavljajo tehnična in pravna vprašanja.
The Ombudsman pointed out that the publication of reports is a key mechanism of accountability to, and communication with, European citizens.
V primeru 1693/2005/PB je Komisija trdila, da računovodske informacije, ki so ji jih predložile države članice, niso bile dokument ali dokumenti, saj so bila poročila, ki so vsebovala informacije, naložena v zbirko podatkov, in kot taka niso več obstajala.
The Ombudsman dealt with three cases concerning exceptions to public access.
Komisija je v takih primerih ravnala tako, da je rezultate rutinskega priklica obravnavala kot dokumente.
In case 1844/2005/GG, the Ombudsman expressed the view that a general reference to the perceived risks of disclosure for the internal decision-making process would not be su cient to justify applying the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/200111.
Navedla je, da pa bi bilo za informacije, ki jih je zahteval pritožnik, potrebno zapleteno ponovno programiranje.
Although the Commission had put forward arguments related to the specific document, the Ombudsman considered, a er inspecting the document, that the Commission had not established that disclosure would seriously undermine the Commission’s decision-making process.
Čeprav je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da pristop Komisije ni zadovoljiv, je opustil nadaljnjo obravnavo te zadeve, ker so bila pravna vprašanja nova in zapletena ter bi jih zakonodajalec Skupnosti lahko preučil s splošnega vidika v okviru napovedane spremembe Uredbe 1049/2001 o dostopu do dokumentov.
In case 3269/2005/TN, the Ombudsman took the view that Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation (privacy and integrity of the individual) did not justify the Commission’s decision to blank out the names of industry lobbyists from a document.
V primeru 2370/2005/OV je Evropska agencij a za zdravila (EMEA) soglašala, da bo zagotovila informacij e v odgovor na tri vprašanja, ki jih je zastavil pritožnik.
In reaching this view, the Ombudsman relied on the Background Paper on Public access to Documents and Data Protection published by the European Data Protection Supervisor, whom the Ombudsman also consulted on this ma4 er.
Sprejeti sta bili dve odločbi o pritožbah, v katerih so bila med drugim sprožena vprašanja v zvezi s pravico pritožnikov do varstva podatkov.
In case 948/2006/BU, the Ombudsman recognised that the European Investment Bank’s dual role, as both a banking institution and a Community body, is reflected in the provisions of its rules on public access to documents concerning the professional obligation of banking secrecy.
Primer 452/2005/BU je zadeval nedovoljeno razkritje imen kandidatov za delovno mesto vodje predstavništva Komisije.
The Ombudsman also noted that the EIB is bound by Regulation 1367/200612, which applies the Aarhus Convention to the Community institutions and bodies.
Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov je varuhu človekovih pravic predložil informacij e o svojih preiskavah v zvezi s to zadevo.
However, that Regulation was not in force when the complainant’s request for access was made.
Komisija je v mnenju, ki ga je predložila varuhu človekovih pravic, navedla, da ji ni uspelo odkriti vira nedovoljenega razkritja, ker ni mogla ugotoviti, katere osebe so imele dostop do zadevnih osebnih podatkov. Varuh
”Access to a document containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the institution concerned shall be refused even a er the decision has been taken if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.”
„Dostop do dokumenta, ki vsebuje mnenja za notranjo rabo kot del razprav in predhodnih posvetovanj v zadevni instituciji, se zavrne tudi po sprejetju odločitve, če bi razkritje resno oslabilo postopek odločanja institucije, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.“
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Ma4 ers to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.
Uredba (ES) št. 1367/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 6. septembra 2006 o uporabi določb Aarhuške konvencije o dostopu do informacij , udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah v institucijah in organih Skupnosti, UL 2006 L 264, str. 13.
The Ombudsman made a critical remark, saying that this was incompatible with the Commission’s obligations under Regulation 45/200113.
Komisije v skladu z Uredbo 45/2001
Case 183/2006/MF concerned Europol’s reply to the complainant’s request to know what information it held about her.
Primer 183/2006/MF je zadeval Europolov odgovor na pritožničino prošnjo, naj ji razkrije informacije, ki jih ima o njej.
The Ombudsman’s decision leopen the general question of the relationship between the Appeals Commi4 ee established under the Europol Convention and his own role under Article 195 of the EC Treaty.
Varuh človekovih pravic v odločbi ni odgovoril na splošno vprašanje odnosa med Odborom za pritožbe, ustanovljenim v skladu s Konvencijo o Europolu, in njegovo lastno vlogo v skladu s členom 195 Pogodbe ES.
In the specific case, the complainant did not provide concrete information to support her allegation against Europol’s decision.
V tem posameznem primeru pritožnica ni predložila konkretnih informacij , s katerimi bi podprla svojo pritožbo proti Europolovi odločitvi.
Furthermore, the Appeals Commi4 ee apologised for and corrected an error in its response to her appeal.
Odbor za pritožbe se je poleg tega opravičil za napako v svojem odgovoru na njeno prošnjo in jo tudi popravil.
During 2007, the Ombudsman contacted the European Data Protection Supervisor in relation to eight cases, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 30 November 2006.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic stopil v stik z evropskim nadzornikom za varstvo podatkov v zvezi z osmimi primeri v skladu z Memorandumom o soglasju, podpisanim 30. novembra 2006.
In six of the cases, the Ombudsman’s inquiry was ongoing at the end of 2007.
V šestih od teh primerov je varuh človekovih pravic ob koncu leta 2007 še opravljal preiskavo.
The two cases that were closed in 2007 have already been mentioned above (452/2005/BU and 3269/2005/TN).
Dva primera, ki sta bila zaključena v letu 2007, sta bila že navedena zgoraj (452/2005/BU in 3269/2005/TN).
The Commission as guardian of the Treaty
Evropska komisija kot varuh Pogodbe
The rule of law is a founding principle of the European Union.
Pravna država je eno temeljnih načel Evropske unije.
One of the Commission’s most important duties is to be the guardian of the Treaty14.
Ena najpomembnejših nalog Komisije pa je biti varuh Pogodbe14.
Article 226 of the EC Treaty creates a general procedure under which the Commission may investigate and refer to the Court of Justice possible infringements of Community law by Member States.
V členu 226 Pogodbe je določen splošni postopek, po katerem lahko Komisija razišče, ali so države članice kršile pravo Skupnosti, in morebitne kršitve predloži Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti.
The Commission may open investigations on its own initiative, on the basis of complaints, or in response to requests from the European Parliament to deal with petitions addressed to it under Article 194 of the EC Treaty.
Komisija lahko sproži preiskave na lastno pobudo, na podlagi pritožb ali na zahtevo Evropskega parlamenta, naj obravnava peticije, naslovljene na Parlament v skladu s členom 194 Pogodbe ES.
Other procedures apply in relation to specific ma4 ers such as illegal state aids.
Drugi postopki se uporabljajo za posebne zadeve, kot so nezakonite državne pomoči.
Complaints that are outside the mandate of the European Ombudsman o en concern alleged infringements of Community law by Member States. Many such cases can best be handled
Pritožbe, ki so zunaj pristojnosti evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, se večkrat nanašajo na domnevne kršitve zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki naj bi jih storile države članice.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 by another member of the European Network of Ombudsmen.
Številne take primere najlažje obravnava kak drug član Evropske mreže varuhov človekovih pravic.
In some cases, however, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to transfer the complaint to the Commission.
V nekaterih primerih pa varuh človekovih pravic oceni, da bi bilo primerno pritožbo predati Komisiji.
Section 2.5 above gives examples of both approaches.
V zgornjem razdelku 2.5 so primeri obeh pristopov.
The Ombudsman receives and deals with complaints against the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaty.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic sprejema in obravnava pritožbe zoper Komisijo v njeni vlogi varuha Pogodbe.
When the Ombudsman opens an inquiry into such a complaint, he is always careful to make clear to the complainant, where necessary, that the inquiry will not examine whether there is an infringement, because the European Ombudsman has no mandate to investigate the actions of authorities of the Member States.
Kadar varuh sproži preiskavo v zvezi s tako pritožbo, mora pritožniku vedno, kadar je to potrebno, pojasniti, da s preiskavo ne bo preučil, ali obstaja kršitev, ker evropski varuh človekovih pravic ni pristojen za preiskovanje ukrepov organov držav članic.
Chapter 3 contains summaries of six decisions that illustrate how the Ombudsman deals with complaints against the Commission in its role as guardian of the Treaty.
Poglavje 3 vsebuje povzetke šestih odločb, ki prikazujejo, kako varuh človekovih pravic obravnava pritožbe zoper Komisijo v njeni vlogi varuha Pogodbe.
As regards the Commission’s procedural obligations towards complainants, the Ombudsman’s main point of reference is a Communication issued by the Commission in 200215, in response to criticisms from the Ombudsman.
Kar zadeva postopkovne obveznosti Komisije do pritožnikov, je glavna oporna točka varuha človekovih pravic sporočilo, ki ga je Komisija objavila leta 200215 kot odgovor na varuhovo kritično oceno.
The Communication states that, as a general rule, Commission departments will investigate complaints with a view to arriving at a decision to issue a formal notice, or to close the case, within not more than one year from the date the complaint was registered by the Secretariat-General.
V sporočilu je navedeno, da službe Komisije praviloma opravijo preiskavo pritožbe, katere namen je sprejeti odločitev o objavi uradnega obvestila ali zaključiti primer, v največ enem letu od datuma, ko je generalni sekretariat evidentiral pritožbo.
Point 3 of the Communication defines the circumstances in which the Secretariat-General is entitled not to register correspondence as a complaint and requires that the complainant be informed accordingly by normal correspondence.
V točki 3 sporočila so opredeljene okoliščine, v katerih generalni sekretariat prejetih pisem ni dolžan evidentirati kot pritožb, navedena pa je tudi zahteva, da je treba pritožnika o tem ustrezno obvestiti z običajno pošto.
In case 446/2007/WP, the Ombudsman emphasised the importance of applying the la4 er provision correctly.
V primeru 446/2007/WP je varuh človekovih pravic poudaril pomen pravilne uporabe zadnje določbe.
Case 3453/2005/GG concerned the Commission’s handling of a complaint about failure to apply the Working Time Directive.
Primer 3453/2005/GG se je nanašal na to, kako je Komisija obravnavala pritožbo zaradi neizvajanja direktive o delovnem času.
In a Special Report to the European Parliament, the Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s undoubted discretion in ma4 ers relating to alleged infringements of Community law by Member States does not entitle it to postpone indefinitely reaching a conclusion on a complaint on the grounds that the applicable law may be amended at some time in the future.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v posebnem poročilu Evropskemu parlamentu izrazil mnenje, da Komisiji njena nedvomna diskrecija v zadevah, povezanih z domnevnimi kršitvami zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki naj bi jih storile države članice, ne daje pravice, da za nedoločen čas odloži odločitev glede pritožbe z obrazložitvijo, da bi se lahko veljavna zakonodaja v prihodnosti spremenila.
The Ombudsman also emphasised in case 962/2006/OV that the Commission’s discretion when dealing with infringement complaints does not render inapplicable the general principle that decisions have to be taken within a reasonable period of time.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v primeru 962/2006/OV tudi poudaril, da diskrecija Komisije pri obravnavanju pritožb zaradi kršitve ne pomeni, da se preneha uporabljati splošno načelo o sprejemanju odločitev v razumnem roku.
A regional ombudsman forwarded a complaint that the Commission had failed properly to reply to requests concerning conformity of certain provisions of regional law with Community law (Case 3386/2005/WP).
Regionalni varuh človekovih pravic je posredoval pritožbo glede tega, da Komisija ni ustrezno odgovorila na prošnje v zvezi s skladnostjo nekaterih določb regionalne zakonodaje z zakonodajo Skupnosti (primer 3386/2005/WP).
The Commission provided detailed explanations in the framework of the European Ombudsman’s inquiry and thereby satisfied the complainant.
Komisija je predložila podrobne obrazložitve v okviru preiskave evropskega varuha človekovih pravic in s tem zadovoljila pritožnika.