natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
COUNCIL GRANTS PARTIAL ACCESS TO ANNUAL REPORT OF CODE OF CONDUCT GROUP
SVET ODOBRI DELNI DOSTOP DO LETNEGA POROČILA SKUPINE ZA KODEKS RAVNANJA
Decision on complaint 573/2001/IJH (Confidential) against the Council of the European Union
Sklep o pritožbi 573/2001/IJH (zaupno) zoper Svet Evropske unij e
The complaint was made by a chartered accountant.
Pritožbo je vložil revizor.
It was classified as confidential, at the complainant’s request, in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
Pritožba je bila v skladu s členom 2 (3) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic na zahtevo pritožnika opredeljena kot zaupna.
The complainant contested the Council’s refusal, under Council Decision 93/731, to grant access to Council document 13563/00, which is the second annual progress report from the Code of Conduct Group (business taxation) to the ECOFIN Council.
Pritožnik je spodbijal zavrnitev Sveta Evropske unij e (93/731), da bi omogočil dostop do dokumenta Sveta 13563/00. Ta dokument je drugo letno poročilo o napredku skupine za kodeks ravnanja (obdavčitev podjetij ) Ekonomsko-finančnemu svetu.
The Council refused access to the document by reference to Article 4 (2) of Council Decision 93/731, in order to protect the confidentiality of the Council’s proceedings.
Svet je dostop do dokumenta zavrnil s sklicevanjem na člen 4 (2) Sklepa Sveta 93/731, da bi tako zavaroval zaupnost delovanja Sveta.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council’s decision to refuse access was tainted by maladministration because:
Varuh je menil, da je odločitev Sveta o zavrnitvi dostopa nepravilna, ker:
(i) the Council’s reasoning was inadequate to explain its interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings as regards the document in question, or to demonstrate that disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process.
(i) razlogi, ki jih je navedel Svet, niso v zadostni meri pojasnili njegovih prizadevanj za ohranitev zaupnosti njegovega delovanja, kar zadeva ta dokument, niti niso pokazali, da bi objava tega dokumenta resno škodovala procesu odločanja v Svetu.
The Ombudsman noted that the Council did not explain in what way the Code of Conduct Group’s second annual report differs in nature from the first, which was published.
Varuh je menil, da Svet ni pojasnil, v čem se drugo letno poročilo skupine za kodeks ravnanja razlikuje od prvega, ki je bilo objavljeno.
(ii) the Council failed to address the question of partial access.
(ii) Svet se ni opredelil glede možnosti delnega dostopa.
According to the case law of the Court the Council is obliged, in applying Decision 93/731, to examine whether partial access should be granted to information not covered by the exceptions.95 Partial access is also expressly foreseen by Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Svet mora glede na sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča pri izvajanju Sklepa 93/731 obravnavati možnost odobritve delnega dostopa do podatkov, ki ne spadajo med izjeme.95
By decision dated 17 June 2002, the Ombudsman therefore addressed a dra recommendation to the Council in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, to reconsider
S sklepom z dne 17. junij a 2002 je zato Varuh v skladu s členom 3 (6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic na Svet naslovil osnutek priporočila, naj ponovno preuči prošnjo v skladu z
Case C-353/99 P, Council of the European Union v. Heidi Hautala, [2001] ECR I-9565, para. 87.
Primer C-353/99 P, Svet Evropske unij e v. Heidi Hautala, [2001] ECR I-9565, odstavek 87.
In its detailed opinion on the drarecommendation, the Council concluded that paragraphs l-4, 13, 14 and 24 of document 13563/00 and points 18 and 14-16 of its Annex I are not covered by any exception and may be released.
Varuh je menil, da je podrobno mnenje Sveta zadostilo stališčem v Varuhovem osnutku priporočila in da bi glede na sedanjo zakonodajo Skupnosti obrazložitev Sveta upravičila zavrnitev dostopa, tudi če bi bil zadevni dokument zakonodajen.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case, on the basis that the Council had taken adequate steps to satisfy the dra recommendation.
Ker je Svet opravil potrebna dejanja za izpolnitev osnutka priporočila, je Varuh zaključil primer.
The full text of the dra recommendation can be found at: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/recommen/en/010573.htm.
Celotno besedilo osnutka priporočila je na naslovu h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/recommen/en/010573.htm.
COUNCIL GRANTS ACCESS TO CANDIDATES’ MARKED EXAMINATION PAPERS
SVET OMOGOČI DOSTOP DO OCENJENIH TESTOV KANDIDATOV
Decisions on complaints 2097/2002/GG and 2059/2002/IP against the Council of the European Union
Sklepa o pritožbah 2097/2002/GG in 2059/2002/IP zoper Svet Evropske unij ePritožba 2097/2002/GG
The complainant, a German citizen, took part in competition Council/C/412 for clerical assistants (C5 bracket) of German language.
Pritožnica je nemška državljanka, ki je sodelovala v izbirnem postopku Council/C/412 za pisarniškega referenta (razred C5) za nemški jezik.
The competition comprised four parts: two multiple choice tests (A and B), a wri en examination for which the PC had to be used (C) and an oral examination (D).
Izbirni postopek je bil sestavljen iz štirih delov: dveh testov z izbirnimi odgovori (A in B), pisnega testa, pri katerem je bilo treba uporabiti PC (C), in ustnega testa (D).
The wri en examination was sub-divided into three tests.
Pisni test je bil nadalje razdeljen na tri teste.
In the second of these tests (test b), candidates had to produce a clean text out of, and lay out, some 45 lines that had been wri en on a typewriter and that contained manuscript corrections and references as well as typing errors and grammatical errors.
Pri drugem od teh treh testov (test b) so morali kandidati iz natipkanega besedila, dolgega okoli 45 vrstic, ki je vsebovalo ročne popravke in sklice ter tipkarske in slovnične napake, napisati in oblikovati čistopis.
This text was to be marked from 0 to 40 points. The pass mark was 24 points.
To besedilo je bilo ocenjeno z 0 do 40 točkami, za uspešno opravljen test pa je bilo potrebnih 24 točk.
On 12 November 2002, the Council informed her that she had only obtained 18 points in test C.b and that she could therefore not be admi ed to the oral examination.
Svet jo je 12. novembra 2002 obvestil, da je na testu C b dosegla le 18 točk, zato ne more opravljati ustnega testa.
In a le er of 20 November 2002, the complainant informed the Council that she had never sat a test of this kind before and added that, as she was still interested in working within the European institutions, it would help her greatly to know the reasons why she had failed to obtain the pass mark.
V pismu z dne 20. novembra 2002 je pritožnica obvestila Svet, da ni še nikdar videla tovrstnega testa in dodala, da jo še vedno zanima delo v evropskih institucijah in da bi ji zato zelo koristilo, če bi vedela, zakaj ni opravila tega testa.
The complainant therefore asked for access to the assessment of the test in question.
Pritožnica je zato zaprosila za dostop do ocene zadevnega testa.
The Council added that it was unfortunately not possible to give the complainant access to her examination paper.
Svet je dodal, da pritožnici na žalost ni mogoče odobriti dostopa do njenega testa.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant stressed that the Council’s refusal to grant her access to her marked examination paper was not acceptable.
Pritožnica je v svoji pritožbi Varuhu poudarila, da je zavrnitev dostopa do njenega ocenjenega testa s strani Sveta nesprejemljiva.
She pointed out that no reasons had been given for this refusal.
Opozorila je, da ni bilo navedenih nobenih razlogov za to zavrnitev.
The complainant added that this refusal made it impossible for her to understand why she had failed to pass the relevant test.
V skladu s členom 6 priloge III Kadrovskih predpisov je delovanje izbirne komisij e tajno.
According to Article 6 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations, the proceedings of the Selection Board shall be secret.
Sklepi preiskav komisij e tudi onemogoča objavo meril pri ocenjevanju testov, ki so pomemben del primerjalne ocene izbirne komisij e o kandidatovih prednostih.98
The obligation to safeguard the secrecy of the proceedings of the Selection Board prevented it from granting a candidate access to his or her marked examination paper, since the la er revealed the a itudes adopted by the individual members related to the assessment of candidates.
Ker je Svet dolžan zagotoviti tajnost delovanja izbirne komisije, kandidatom ne more odobriti dostopa do njihovih ocenjenih testov, saj leti odkrivajo mnenja posameznih članov v zvezi z ocenjevanjem kandidatov.
The communication of the marks obtained in the various tests constituted an adequate statement of reasons on which a Selection Board’s decision was based
Objava ocen posameznih testov zadostno pojasnjuje razloge izbirne komisij e za njeno odločitev.
No observations were received from the complainant.
Pritožnica ni podala pripomb.
DECISIONSFOLLOWING
OSNUTEK PRIPOROČILA
On 16 April 2003, the Ombudsman addressed the following dra recommendation to the Council in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:
Varuh je 16. aprila 2003 na Svet v skladu s členom 3(6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic naslovil naslednji osnutek priporočila:
The Council of the European Union should allow the complainant to have access to her own marked examination paper.
Svet Evropske unij e bi moral pritožnici dovoliti dostop do njihovih ocenjenih testov.
This dra recommendation was based on the following considerations:
Ta osnutek priporočila je temeljil na naslednji presoji:
1 The complainant, a German citizen, took part in competition Council/C/412 for clerical assistants (C5 bracket) of German language.
1 Pritožnica je nemška državljanka, ki je sodelovala na izbirnem postopku Council/C/412 za pisarniškega referenta (razred C5) za nemški jezik.
Having been informed that she had failed to obtain the pass mark in one of the wri en tests of this competition, she asked for access to her marked examination paper.
Ko je prejela obvestilo, da ni opravila enega od pisnih testov tega izbirnega postopka, je prosila za dostop do svojega ocenjenega testa.
The Council rejected this request.
Svet je to prošnjo zavrnil.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant expressed the view that this refusal was not acceptable.
V svoji pritožbi Varuhu je bila pritožnica mnenja, da je ta zavrnitev nesprejemljiva.
2 In its opinion, the Council pointed out that according to Article 6 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations, the proceedings of the Selection Board shall be secret and that this secrecy had been introduced with a view to guaranteeing the independence of Selection Boards and the objectivity of their proceedings.
2 V svojem mnenju je Svet opozoril, da mora biti v skladu s členom 6 priloge III Kadrovskih predpisov delovanje izbirne komisij e tajno in da ta tajnost zagotavlja neodvisnost izbirnih komisij in objektivnost njihovih odločitev.
In the Council’s view, the obligation to safeguard the secrecy of the proceedings of the Selection Board prevented it from granting a candidate access to his or her marked examination paper, since the la er revealed the a itudes adopted by the individual members related to the assessment of candidates.
Po mnenju Sveta je leta dolžan zagotoviti tajnost delovanja izbirne komisije, zato kandidatom ne more odobriti dostopa do njihovih ocenjenih testov, saj leti odkrivajo mnenja posameznih članov v zvezi z ocenjevanjem kandidatov.
Case 89/79 Bonu v Council [1980] ECR 553, paragraph 5.
Drugič, kandidatovo zaupanje v upravo se okrepi.
Case C-254/95 P European Parliament v Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, paragraph 29.
Primer C-254/95 P Evropski parlament v. Innamorati [1996] ECR I-3423, odstavek 29.
Owninitiative inquiry 1004/97/(PD)/GG.
Preiskava na lastno pobudo 1004/97/(PD)/GG.
Complaints 457/99/IP, 610/99/IP, 1000/99/IP and 25/2000/IP.
Pritožbe 457/99/IP, 610/99/IP, 1000/99/IP in 25/2000/IP.
Second, the candidate’s confidence in the administration is strengthened.
Sklepi preiskav da jih včasih sploh ne oceni.
Third, if a candidate feels that he has been wrongly assessed, he will be able to argue much more precisely if he has seen his marked examination script.
Tretjič, če kandidat meni, da je njegova ocena napačna, se lahko zagovarja precej natančneje, če je videl svoj ocenjeni test.
In any event, the citizen who requests information should be the judge of whether the information is useful, not the administration.
V vsakem primeru pa naj sodi o koristnosti informacij državljan, ki je informacij e zahteval, ne pa uprava.
The Commission also refers to administrative and financial burdens which the disclosure of examination scripts could entail.
Komisij a omenja tudi upravna in finančna bremena, ki bi jih lahko povzročilo objavljanje testov.
The Ombudsman is confident that the Commission services could organise the process of disclosure in a way that would minimise the costs since it is unlikely that every candidate would wish to see his or her marked examination script.
Varuh je prepričan, da bi službe Komisij e lahko organizirale postopek objavljanja tako, da bi se stroški kar najbolj znižali, saj ni verjetno, da bi vsi kandidati želeli videti svoje ocenjene teste.
The Commission is also correct to point out that the activity of Selection Boards is subject to judicial review by the Community courts.
Komisij a ima prav tudi, ko opozarja, da dejavnost izbirnih komisij nadzorujejo sodišča Skupnosti.
However, this means that queries which could easily have been solved if the candidate had a chance to see the marked examination script may have to be dealt with by the courts.
Vendar pa to pomeni, da se morajo sodišča verjetno ukvarjati z vprašanji, ki bi bila lahko rešena, če bi kandidati imeli možnost videti svoje ocenjene teste.
The Ombudsman believes that this is highly unsatisfactory for candidates.
Varuh meni, da je to za kandidate povsem nesprejemljivo.
Granting access to the marked examination script, on the other hand, is likely to satisfy many queries with a minimum of effort and time.
Odobritev dostopa do ocenjenega testa bi verjetno po drugi strani odgovorila na mnoga vprašanja z minimalnim vložkom dela in časa.
As the Treaty of Amsterdam has confirmed, the obligation to take decisions as openly as possible represents one of the fundamental principles of the administrative law of the European Communities.
Kot je potrdila Amsterdamska pogodba, je dolžnost kar najbolj odprtega odločanja eno od temeljnih načel upravne zakonodaje Evropskih skupnosti.
Furthermore, it is important to ensure that citizens receive a positive impression when first encountering the Community institutions.
Nadalje je pomembno zagotoviti, da dobijo državljani ob prvem stiku z institucijami Skupnosti pozitivne vtise.
Citizens who wish to work for the Communities receive a very bad impression if they are le in doubt as to whether they have been assessed fairly and correctly.
Če so državljani, ki želijo delati za Skupnosti, negotovi, ali so bili pošteno in pravilno ocenjeni, to ustvarja zelo slab vtis.
To dispel such doubt it is essential that each candidate should have the possibility to inspect the marked copy of his or her own examination script.
Za razpršitev teh dvomov bi nujno moral imeti vsak kandidat možnost pregleda ocenjene kopij e lastnega testa.
This possibility in no way conflicts with the requirement that the proceedings of Selection Boards shall be secret, since it does not concern the deliberations of Selection Boards in which the relative merits of candidates are assessed.
Ta možnost pa nikakor ne nasprotuje zahtevi po tajnem delovanju izbirnih komisij , saj ne zadeva razprav izbirnih komisij , kjer se ocenjujejo primerjalne prednosti kandidatov.
For these reasons, the Commission’s failure to modify its administrative procedures so as to give each candidate the possibility of access to his or her own marked examination script, appears to constitute an instance of maladministration.”
Iz teh razlogov je opustitev take prilagoditve upravnih postopkov Komisije, da bi imeli kandidati možnost dostopa do svojih ocenjenih testov, primer nepravilnosti.
5 On the basis of these considerations, the Ombudsman made a recommendation to the Commission according to which the la er should, in its future recruitment competitions, and at the latest from 1 July 2000, give candidates access to their own marked examination scripts upon
5 Na tej podlagi je Varuh Komisij i poslal priporočilo, po katerem bi morala Komisij a pri prihodnjih razpisih za zaposlovanje, najkasneje pa od 1. julij a 2000, kandidatom na njihovo zahtevo dovoliti dostop do njihovih ocenjenih testov.
By le er of 7 December 1999, the President of the European Commission informed the Ombudsman that the Commission had accepted this recommendation.
V pismu z dne 7. decembra 1999 je predsednik Evropske komisij e Varuha obvestil, da je Komisij a sprejela to priporočilo.
6 On 17 November 2000, the European Parliament adopted a resolution102 in which it endorsed the Ombudsman’s special report and congratulated the Commission on its positive response to the recommendation made by the Ombudsman.
6 Evropski parlament je 17. novembra 2000 sprejel resolucijo102, v kateri je potrdil Varuhovo posebno poročilo in čestital Komisij i za njen pozitiven odziv na Varuhovo priporočilo.
Parliament also expressed the hope “that all other European bodies and institutions will follow the example set by the Commission”.
Parlament je izrazil tudi upanje, “da bodo tudi vsi drugi evropski organi in institucij e sledili zgledu Komisije”. e”.
7 On 17 July 2000, the Ombudsman addressed drarecommendations to the European Parliament in which he suggested that the la er should grant the complainants concerned access to their marked examination papers.
7 Varuh je 17. julij a 2000 na Evropski parlament naslovil osnutek priporočila, v katerem je predlagal, da bi moral leta zadevnim pritožnikom odobriti dostop do njihovih ocenjenih testov.
On 27 November 2000, Parliament informed the Ombudsman that it had accepted the principle that candidates should be allowed to obtain a copy of their own marked examination papers and described how it would implement the Ombudsman’s drarecommendations.103
Parlament je 27. novembra 2000 obvestil Varuha, da je sprejel načelo, po katerem bi moralo biti kandidatom dovoljeno pridobiti kopij o njihovih ocenjenih testov, in opisal način izvajanja osnutkov Varuhovega priporočila.103
8 The arguments put forward by the Council in the present case do not refer to any special characteristics of competitions organised by the Council which would distinguish them from competitions organised by the European Parliament and the Commission.
8 Argumenti Sveta v tem primeru ne kažejo nobenih posebnih lastnosti razpisov, ki jih organizira Svet in ki bi jih ločeval od razpisov, ki jih organizirata Evropski parlament in Komisij a.
The Ombudsman therefore takes the view that the considerations set out in his special report concerning the recruitment procedures of the Commission also apply (mutatis mutandis) to the competitions organised by the Council.
Zato je Varuh mnenja, da določila njegovega posebnega poročila o postopkih zaposlovanja v Komisij i veljajo (mutatis mutandis) tudi za razpise, ki jih organizira Svet.
9 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the refusal of the Council to grant the complainant access to her marked examination paper is an instance of maladministration.
9 Na podlagi zgoraj povedanega je Varuh mnenja, da je zavrnitev dostopa do ocenjenega testa pritožnice s strani Sveta primer nepravilnosti.
The Council’s detailed opinion
Podrobno mnenje Sveta
, the communication of these documents could not be considered to infringe the principle of secrecy inherent in the proceedings of the Selection Board.
Svet je v svojem podrobnem mnenju obvestil Varuha, da se je odločil sprejeti osnutek priporočila in pritožnici dovoliti dostop do njenega ocenjenega testa.
No observations on the Council’s detailed opinion were received from the complainant.
Pritožnici je bila še isti dan poslana kopij a njenega testa skupaj z oceno izbirne komisije. e.
Cf. the Ombudsman’s decisions of 11 May 2001 concerning complaints 457/99/IP, 610/99/IP, 1000/99/IP and 25/2000/IP, available on the Ombudsman’s website (h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Prim. sklepe Varuha človekovih pravic z dne 11. maja 2001 o pritožbah 457/99/IP, 610/99/IP, 1000/99/IP in 25/2000/IP, na voljo na Varuhovi spletni strani (h p://www-euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
Judgement of 25 June 2003 in Case T-72/01 Pyres v. Commission.
Sodišča prve stopnje v primeru T-72/01 ne krši načela tajnosti delovanja izbirne komisije. e.
Decisions following an inquiry
Zavrnitev dostopa do ocenjenega testa
1.3 In its detailed opinion, the Council informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to accept the drarecommendation and to allow the complainant access to her own marked examination paper.
1.3 Svet je v svojem podrobnem mnenju obvestil Varuha, da se je odločil sprejeti osnutek priporočila in pritožnici dovoliti dostop do njenega ocenjenega testa.
2.1 On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman concludes that the Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s dra recommendation and that the measures taken by the Council are satisfactory.
2.1 Na osnovi svojih preiskav Varuh zaključuje, da je Svet sprejel njegov osnutek priporočila in da so ukrepi Sveta zadovoljivi.
The European Ombudsman made the same dra recommendation to the Council of the European Union in case 2059/2002/IP.
Evropski varuh je isti osnutek priporočila poslal Svetu Evropske unij e v primeru 2059/2002/IP.
The Council’s detailed opinion and the decision are as follows:
Podrobno mnenje in odločitev Sveta sta takale:
In its detailed opinion, the Council stressed that, further to the dra recommendation made by the Ombudsman in a previous similar case (complaint 2097/2002/GG), the General Secretariat of the Council had, on 17 September 2003, set up new rules related to the communication of marked copies to candidates.
Svet je v svojem podrobnem mnenju poudaril, da je generalni sekretariat Sveta na podlagi Varuhovega osnutka priporočila v prejšnjem podobnem primeru (pritožba 2097/2002/GG) 17. septembra 2003 uvedel nova pravila o posredovanju ocenjenih kopij kandidatom.
These rules would apply to all external and internal competitions to be organised by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Ta pravila veljajo za vse zunanje in notranje izbirne postopke, ki jih organizira generalni sekretariat Sveta.
Candidates participating in competitions published from 1 September 2003 onwards would be allowed to obtain a copy of their own examination paper and, for wri en tests, of the evaluation sheet of the Selection Board.
Kandidati, ki bodo sodelovali v izbirnih postopkih, objavljenih od 1. septembra 2003 dalje, bodo lahko pridobili kopij o svojega testa in, pri pisnih testih, ocenjevalno polo izbirne komisije.
In case of competitions organised before 1 September 2003, the relevant rules provided that candidates so requesting were allowed to obtain a copy of their own examination paper and also the evaluation sheet, where the Selection Board had drawn up such a sheet.
Za izbirne postopke, organizirane pred 1. septembrom 2003, ustrezna pravila določajo, da kandidati, ki to želijo, lahko dobijo kopij o svojega testa in tudi ocenjevalno polo, če jo je izbirna komisij a uporabila.
As regards the present case, the Council had decided to allow the complainant access to his own examination paper.
Kar zadeva ta primer, se je Svet odločil kandidatu dovoliti dostop do njegovega testa.
As regards the communication of the evaluation criteria, the Council stressed that they had been indicated in point VI.A.d) of the notice of competition and that the Selection Board had not drawn up an evaluation sheet.
Kar zadeva pošiljanje ocenjevalnih meril, je Svet poudaril, da so bili leti navedeni v točki VI.A.d) obvestila o razpisu in da izbirna komisij a ni pripravila ocenjevalne pole.