natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Joint declaration relating to 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 L 145/43 of 31.5.2001) 2001 OJ L 173/5.
Skupna izjava o Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisij e (UL L 145/43 z dne 31.5.2001) 2001 UL L 173/5.
Decisions following an inquiry 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.
Nadalje varuh ne meni, da argumenti pritožnika vzpostavljajo prevladujoč javni interes za razkritje. Zato varuh ne ugotovavlja nepravilnosti pri zavrnitvi dostopa javnosti do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva, preden Konvencij a ne zaključi s svojim delom.
It seems difficult to argue that the Convention’s decision-making process could be undermined once it has reached the end of its work.
Evropski varuh opozarja na to, da se gornja ugotovitev nanaša le na zavrnitev dostopa javnosti do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva.
The Ombudsman therefore agrees with the Secretary General of the Convention that there is no reason why the documents concerned should not be made public at that stage.
Varuh vic ne zavzema stališča glede spornih vprašanj o odprtosti odnosa med predsedstvom in člani Konvencije, saj se ta vprašanja nanašajo na politično delo Konvencije. e.
2.9 In his final observations, the complainant expresses the fear that in the final stages of negotiations in the Convention this important issue may not be satisfactorily solved.
2.9 V končnih pripombah je pritožnik izrazil skrb, da v zaključnih fazah pogajanj v Konvencij i tega pomembnega vprašanja ne bi zadovoljivo rešili.
The Ombudsman understands that the Convention is expected to complete its work by the end of June 2003.
Evropski varuh razume, da se od Konvencij e pričakuje, da bo končala svoje delo do konca junij a 2003.
For this reason, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be useful to delay a decision in order to inquire into the fear expressed by the complainant.
Zato varuh meni, da ne bi bilo modro zavlačevati z odločitvijo samo zato, da se preverijo dejstva, ki skrbijo pritožnika.
The Ombudsman’s le er to the President of the Convention informing him of the present decision will mention the finding, set out in the second paragraph of 2.8 above, concerning public access to the Convention’s documents once the Convention has finished its work.
Pismo Evropskega varuha predsedniku Konvencij e ga obvešča o tej odločitvi in navaja ugotovitev, podrobno obrazloženo v drugem odstavku točke 2.8 zgoraj, ki se nanaša na dostop javnosti do dokumentov Konvencij e po tem, ko je Konvencij a zaključila svoje delo.
The le er will also express the Ombudsman’s view that it would be in accordance with the principles of good administration for the Convention to make the appropriate arrangements as soon as possible to ensure such access.
V pismu je tudi izraženo stališče varuha, da bi bilo v skladu z načeli dobrega upravljanja Konvencije, če bi za zagotovitev takšnega dostopa čim prej ustrezno ukrepali.
The Ombudsman will also forward to the President of the Convention the complainant’s practical suggestions, made in his final observations, concerning future public access to the Convention’s documents.
Evropski varuh bo predsedniku Konvencij e posredoval tudi praktične predloge pritožnika iz njegovih končnih pripomb glede prihodnjega dostopa javnosti do dokumentov Konvencije. e.
For the reasons explained in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 above, the European Ombudsman considers that there has been no maladministration by the European Convention and that no further inquiries into the complaint are justified.
Zaradi razlogov, pojasnjenih v točkah 2.7 in 2.9. zgoraj, Evropski varuh meni, da Evropska konvencij a ni naredila nepravilnosti in da nadaljnje preiskave glede pritožbe niso utemeljene.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Evropski varuh s tem primer zaključuje.
Note : A er the conclusion of the Convention’s work on 10 July 2003, the Praesidium agendas and summaries of proceedings were posted on the Convention’s website at the following address : h p://europeanconvention.eu.int/docpraes.asp?lang=EN
Opomba: Po zaključku dela Konvencij e 10. junij a 2003 so bili dnevni redi in povzetki postopkov objavljeni na spletni strani Konvencij e na naslednjem naslovu: h p://european-convention.eu.int/docpraes.asp?lang=EN
ALLEGED FAILURE TO CARRY OUT PROPER INQUIRY
DOMNEVNA NEIZVRŠITEV USTREZNE PREISKAVE
Decision on complaint 1625/2002/IJH against the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce
Sklep o pritožbi 1625/2002/IJH zoper Evropski urad za boj proti prevaram
In September 2002, a former Commission official made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF).
Septembra 2002 je nekdanja uradnica Komisij e pri Evropskem varuhu vložila pritožbo zoper Evropski urad za boj proti prevaram(OLAF).
According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows:
Po navedbah pritožnice so pomembna naslednja dejstva:
On 3 November 2000, whilst working as a head of Unit in the Commission Directorate General for Research, the complainant drew OLAF’s a ention to certain irregularities in the financing of a project.
3. novembra 2000, ko je pritožnica delala na Komisij i kot vodja enote generalnega direktorata za raziskave, je opozorila OLAF na določene nepravilnosti pri financiranju projekta.
She was never informed of the outcome of OLAF’s investigation.
O izidu preiskave OLAF-a ni bila nikoli obveščena.
She subsequently learnt that the two officials who interviewed her had le OLAF, that the scientific manager of the project had not been interviewed and that the contract for the project had been signed at the beginning of the year 2002, a er very extensive changes to the technical annex.
Naknadno je ugotovila, da sta uradnika, s katerima se je sestala, zapustila OLAF, da vodja raziskave projekta ni bil zaslišan in da je bila pogodba za projekt podpisana v začetku leta 2002 po znatnih spremembah tehnične priloge.
The complainant queries whether the OLAF unit that replied to the interservice consultation on this project was aware of her complaint about the project.
Pritožnica se sprašuje, če je enota OLAF, ki je odgovorila na medsektorsko posvetovanje o tem projektu, vedela, da se je pritožila glede projekta.
The complainant alleges that OLAF has failed to carry out a proper inquiry into the ma er and that it has never informed her of the outcome.
Pritožnica navaja, da OLAF zadeve ni ustrezno raziskal in da je nikoli ni obvestil o izidu.
She claims that OLAF should inform her whether it conducted an inquiry, what was the result and whether the OLAF unit which replied to the interservice consultation before the project was approved at the beginning of the year 2002 was aware of her complaint.
Pritožnica zahteva, da jo OLAF obvesti o tem, ali je vodil preiskavo, kakšen je bil izid in če je enota OLAF, ki je odgovorila na medsektorsko posvetovanje, preden je bil projekt v začetku leta 2002 odobren, vedela za njeno pritožbo.
The opinion of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF)
Mnenje Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF)
The opinion received from OLAF contained, in summary, the following points:
Mnenje OLAF-a v povzetku vsebuje naslednje:
The allegation that OLAF failed to carry out a proper inquiry
Trditev, da OLAF ni izvršil ustrezne preiskave
According to the complainant’s note to OLAF of 3 November 2000, the scientific and technical evaluation of the project proposal dated 24 July 2000 was negative.
V skladu s sporočilom pritožnice OLAF-u z dne 3. novembra 2000 je bila znanstvena in tehnična ocenitev predloga projekta z dne 24. julij a 2000 negativna.
The Director-General of the Commission Directorate General for Research (DG RTD) had informed the responsible Commissioner’s Chief of Cabinet by note of 25 October 2000 that negotiations under the authority of the complainant in September 1999 had led to unsatisfactory results.
Generalni direktor generalnega direktorata Komisij e za raziskave (GD RTD) je dne 25. oktobra 2000 obvestil predstojnika kabineta odgovornega komisarja, da so pogajanja s pritožnico septembra 1999 pripeljala do nezadovoljivih izidov.
He had therefore decided to ask Mr B., Advisor to the Director, to reach an agreement with the project coordinator to conclude the project in a satisfactory manner by the end of November 2000.
Zato se je odločil zaprositi g. B, svetovalca direktorja, da doseže dogovor s koordinatorjem projekta, da se do konca novembra 2000 projekt zaključi v zadovoljivi meri.
The complainant’s note stated that, in light of the contradiction between the two considerations mentioned above, the complainant was fi ling a complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulations.
Pritožničino sporočilo navaja, da je glede na nasprotja med dvema zgoraj omenjenima premislekoma pritožnica vložila pritožbo na podlagi člena 90 (2) kadrovskih predpisov.
The Director General of OLAF acknowledged receipt of this information by note dated 11 December 2000, and requested the complainant to supply all available information regarding the alleged irregularities.
Generalni direktor OLAF-a je potrdil prejem te informacij e dne 11. decembra 2000 in od pritožnice zahteval, da posreduje vse razpoložljive informacije, ki se nanašajo na domnevne nepravilnosti.
On 22 January 2001, the complainant submi ed numerous additional documents related to the negotiations and discussions on the project.
22. januarja 2001 je pritožnica predložila številne dodatne dokumente, ki se nanašajo na pogajanja in razprave o projektu.
The information was inconclusive as to whether irregularities had occurred.
Informacij e niso izkazale, da so se pojavile nepravilnosti.
Accordingly, on 27 February 2001, OLAF opened an internal investigation.
Zato je OLAF 27. februarja 2001 začel notranjo preiskavo.
The following information was therea er collected:
Zbrane so bile naslednje informacije: e:
On 24 March 2001, the Director-General of DG RTD sent an extensive information note to OLAF;
24. marca 2001 je generalni direktor GD RTD poslal OLAF-u obsežno poročilo z informacijami; ami;
On 23 July 2001, OLAF investigators interviewed the complainant.
23. julij a 2001 so se preiskovalci OLAF-a sestali s pritožnico.
She confirmed that to her knowledge there were no indications of fraud, but that the project had been allowed to proceed notwithstanding the shortcomings identified in the scientific evaluation;
Ta je potrdila, da po njenem vedenju ni bilo znakov goljufije, toda začetek projekta je bil odobren kljub slabostim, ki so bile ugotovljene v znanstvenem vrednotenju;
Based on this information, a final case report was adopted on 1 February 2002, which recommended closure of the case without follow-up.
Na podlagi te informacij e je bilo 1. februarja 2002 sprejeto končno poročilo, ki je predlagalo zaključek primera brez nadaljevanja.
The Director-General of OLAF adopted this recommendation.
Generalni direktor OLAF-a je to priporočilo sprejel.
OLAF thus conducted an entirely proper investigation into the complainant’s allegations, a er which it concluded that no irregularities had occurred and no follow-up action was required.
OLAF je tako vodil povsem ustrezno preiskavo trditev pritožnice, po kateri je ugotovil, da ni bilo nepravilnosti in da nadaljnji ukrepi niso potrebni.
The allegation that OLAF did not inform the complainant
Trditev, da OLAF ni obvestil pritožnice
Regulation 1073/1999 contains rules on who should be informed of the results of an OLAF investigation.
Uredba 1073/1999 vsebuje pravila o tem, kdo mora biti obveščen o izidu preiskave OLAF-a.
Article 8 provides that information obtained in the course of an internal investigation is subject to professional secrecy and may not be communicated to persons other than those within the institutions of the European Communities or the Member States whose functions require them to know.
Člen 8 določa, da je informacij a, pridobljena v postopku notranje preiskave, poslovna skrivnost in razen osebam znotraj institucij Evropskih skupnosti ali državam članicam, katerih delo zahteva, da to vedo, ne sme biti posredovana.
Article 9 provides that the final case report, which contains a synopsis of the information gathered during the investigation, shall be sent to the judicial authorities of the Member State concerned and the institution, body, offi ce or agency concerned, for follow up action.
Člen 9 določa, da se mora končno poročilo primera, ki vsebuje strnjen pregled informacij , zbranih med preiskavo, poslati sodnim organom zadevne države članice in zadevni institucij i, organu, uradu ali agencij i v nadaljnje ukrepanje.
On 12 July 2002, the complainant sent a note to OLAF requesting to be informed of the outcome of the investigation.
12. julij a 2002 je pritožnica OLAF-u poslala sporočilo in v njem zahtevala, da jo obvestijo o izidu preiskave.
On 5 August 2002, OLAF prepared a reply, but it was never sent because the complainant had retired from service as of 1 August 2002.
5. avgusta 2002 je OLAF pripravil odgovor, vendar ji ga niso nikoli poslali, saj se je s 1. avgustom 2002 upokojila.
On 9 August 2002, OLAF sent a note to the Head of Unit at DG RTD, se ing forth the conclusions of the investigation.
9. avgusta 2002 je OLAF poslal sporočilo vodji enote GD RTD, v katerem je navedel zaključke preiskave.
OLAF has no record of having been consulted as part of an interservice consultation on this project.
OLAF nima dokaza, da se je o tem projektu posvetoval v okviru medsektorskih posvetovanj.
There is, however, an exchange of le ers between the Directors General of DG RTD and OLAF on whether financing of the project should continue while the investigation was ongoing.
Obstaja le pisna korespondenca med generalnim direktorjem GD RTD in OLAF-om o tem, ali naj se f i financiranje projekta nadaljuje, medtem ko traja preiskava. Generalni direktor GD RTD je 14. maja
The Director General of DG RTD sent a le er to the Director General of OLAF on 14 May 2001, explaining that he would propose financing of the project to the Commission, absent advice to the contrary.
2001 poslal pismo generalnemu direktorju OLAF-a, v katerem je razložil, da bo Komisij i predlagal f i financiranje tega projekta, ker ni nasprotnih razlogov.
On 20 May 2001, the Director General of OLAF replied that the investigation was still ongoing, but that the information in OLAF’s possession at that time did not suggest a reason for advising against continued financing for the project.
20. maja 2001 je generalni direktor OLAF- a odgovoril, da preiskava še traja, vendar iz informacije, ki jih je OLAF takrat imel, niso izhajali razlogi za odsvetovanje nadaljevanja financiranja projekta.
OLAF annexed copies of the relevant documents to its opinion.
OLAF je k svojemu mnenju priložil kopij e ustreznih dokumentov.
The complainant’s observations on OLAF’s opinion contained, in summary, the following points:
Pripombe pritožnice na mnenje OLAF-a v povzetku vsebujejo naslednje:
The investigator in charge of the investigation asserts in his conclusions that no element in OLAF’s possession demonstrates the existence of irregularities falling within OLAF’s competence.
Preiskovalec, odgovoren za preiskavo, v svojih zaključkih trdi, da noben element v lasti OLAF-a ne dokazuje obstoja nepravilnosti ki bi bile v okviru pristojnosti OLAF-a.
Three elements, included in the fi le with supporting evidence, were not taken into account during the investigation:
Trije elementi, vključeni v primer z ustreznimi dokazili, med preiskavo niso bili upoštevani:
(a) The evaluation of the proposal was irregular because :
(a) Ocenjevanje predloga je bilo nepravilno, ker:
- the procedure in force was not followed,
- ni bil spoštovan veljavni postopek
- concerning the eligibility form which explicitly mentioned the request for the proposal to be anonymous, two experts out of four replied in the negative to one substantive eligibility criterion and the expert from the beneficiary country did not sign the form guaranteeing anonymity,
- sta v zvezi s formularjem o primernosti, ki je jasno navajal, da je zahteva za predlog anonimna, dva od štirih strokovnjakov negativno odgovorila na bistveno merilo primernosti, strokovnjak iz države upravičenke pa ni podpisal formularja, ki jamči anonimnost,
- the expert from the beneficiary country was also involved in both steps of the evaluation, scientific and regional.
- je v obeh fazah ocenjevanja, znanstveni in regionalni, bil vključen strokovnjak iz države upravičenke.
(b) The instruction to close the fi le positively is also irregular and perhaps illegal.
(b) Tudi navodilo za pozitivno zaključitev primera je bilo nepravilno in morda nezakonito.
(c) It is surprising, if not irregular, that the granting of a subsidy depends solely on a temporary agent.
(c) Presenetljivo, če ne nepravilno, je, da je odobritev subvencije odvisna izključno od začasnega uslužbenca.
At present, the same temporary agent is again responsible for operational aspects of the project, although the unit to which she is allocated does not carry out operational tasks and should not manage projects.
Dejansko je začasna uslužbenka, ki je bila odgovorna za primer v času ocenjevanja,
1.1 The complainant was a Head of Unit in the Commission Directorate General for Research.
1.1 Pritožnica je bila na Komisij i vodja enote generalnega direktorata za raziskave.
In November 2000, she drew the a ention of the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce (OLAF) to certain irregularities in the financing of a project.
Novembra 2000 je opozorila Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) na določene nepravilnosti pri f i financiranju projekta.
The complainant alleges that OLAF failed to carry out a proper inquiry into the ma er and identifies three elements which, she argues, were not taken into account, although they were included in the fi le with supporting evidence.
Pritožnica trdi, da OLAF zadeve ni ustrezno raziskal in navaja tri elemente, za katere sklepa, da niso bili obravnavani, čeprav so bili vključeni v primer z ustreznimi dokazili.
1.2 According to OLAF, its Director General requested the complainant to supply all available information regarding the alleged irregularities.
1.2 Generalni direktor OLAF-a je od pritožnice zahteval, da posreduje vse razpoložljive informacij e glede domnevnih nepravilnosti.
Since the information provided was inconclusive as to whether irregularities had occurred, OLAF opened an internal investigation.
Ker pridobljene informacij e niso dokazale, da so se nepravilnosti zgodile, je OLAF začel notranjo preiskavo.
The investigation collected information from the Director-General of DG RTD and from the complainant.
Preiskava je zbrala informacij e generalnega direktorja GD RTD in pritožnice.
The Director-General of DG RTD sent an extensive information note.
Generalni direktor GD RTD je poslal obsežno poročilo.
The OLAF investigators interviewed the complainant, who confirmed that to her knowledge there were no indications of fraud, but that the project had been allowed to proceed notwithstanding the shortcomings identified in the scientific evaluation.
Preiskovalci OLAF-a so se pogovarjali s pritožnico, ki je potrdila, da kolikor je njej znano, ni bilo znakov goljufije, začetek projekta pa je bil odobren kljub slabostim, ki so bile ugotovljene v znanstvenem vrednotenju. Pritožnica je pozneje poslala pisni dodatek k razgovoru.
OLAF annexed copies of the relevant documents to its opinion.
OLAF je k svojemu stališču priložil kopij e ustreznih dokumentov.
1.3 The Ombudsman points out that the present complaint is against OLAF.
1.3 Evropski varuh opozarja, da je vložena pritožba zoper OLAF.
The Ombudsman has not, therefore, carried out an inquiry into the European Commission’s handling of the project.
Zato Varuh ni izvedel preiskave o tem, kako Evropska komisij a obravnava projekt.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry concerns the question whether there was maladministration by OLAF in relation to the administrative investigation which it launched following the information supplied to it by the complainant.
Preiskava Varuha se ukvarja z vprašanjem, ali je pri OLAF-u prišlo do nepravilnosti v zvezi z upravno preiskavo, ki jo je začel na podlagi informacij , ki jih je dobil od pritožnice.
46 provides for OLAF to
46 določa, da OLAF izvaja upravne
1.4 The Ombudsman notes that Article 1 (3) of Regulation 1073/1999conduct internal administrative investigations for the purpose of:
1.4 Evropski varuh navaja, da člen 1(3) Uredbe 1073/1999preiskave za:
“– fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community,
“‒ boj proti goljufijam, korupciji in vsem drugim nezakonitim dejanjem, ki vplivajo na finančne interese Evropske skupnosti,
– investigating to that end serious ma ers relating to the discharge of professional duties such as to constitute a dereliction of the obligations of officials and other servants of the Communities liable to result in disciplinary or, as the case may be, criminal proceedings, (…)”
‒ preiskovanje resnih zadev v ta namen v zvezi z izvajanjem službenih dolžnosti, ki pomenijo zanemarjanje delovnih nalog uradnikov in drugih uslužbencev Skupnosti, ki bi lahko imeli za posledico disciplinski oziroma kazenski postopek, (...)”
1.5 The Ombudsman considers that principles of good administration require administrative investigations by OLAF to be carried out carefully, impartially and objectively.
1.5 Evropski varuh meni, da načela dobrega upravljanja zahtevajo, da se upravne preiskave OLAF-a izvedejo natančno, pravično in nepristransko.
OLAF’s investigation in the present case failed to comply with the principles of good administration.
Varuh v dokazni dokumentaciji, pridobljeni od OLAF-a in pritožnice, ne najde ničesar, kar bi kazalo na to, da se preiskava OLAF-a v tem primeru ni ravnala po načelih dobrega upravljanja.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman considers that it was reasonable for OLAF to conclude that the information available to it did not demonstrate the existence of irregularities falling within OLAF’s competence.
Evropski varuh meni, da je OLAF upravičeno sklepal, da informacije, s katerimi je razpolagal, niso pokazale nepravilnosti v okviru pristojnosti OLAF-a.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Evropski varuh tako ni našel nepravilnosti v zvezi s tem vidikom pritožbe.
She claims that OLAF should inform her whether it conducted an inquiry and of the result.
Trdi, da bi jo OLAF moral obvestiti o tem, ali je opravil preiskavo in o njenem izidu.
2.2 OLAF argues that Regulation 1073/1999 contains rules on who should be informed of the results of an OLAF investigation.
2.2 OLAF dokazuje, da Uredba 1073/1999 vsebuje pravila o tem, kdo mora biti obveščen o izidih preiskave OLAF.
Article 8 of the Regulation provides that information obtained in the course of an internal investigation is subject to professional secrecy and may not be communicated to persons other than those within the institutions of the European Communities
Člen 8 te uredbe določa, da je informacij a, pridobljena v postopku notranje preiskave, poslovna skrivnost in razen osebam znotraj institucij Evropskih skupnosti ali državam
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Offi ce OJ L 136/1 of 31.5.1999.
Uredba (ES) št. 1073/1999 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam UL L 136/1 z dne 31.5.1999.
Decisions following an inquiry or the Member States whose functions require them to know.
Sklepi preiskav članicam, katerih delo zahteva, da to vedo, ne sme biti posredovana.