natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Two years later, the Commission’s Delegation in Be`ing informed the consortium that it had decided to terminate the service contract because the expert had failed to fulfil his tasks as modified in the addendum.
Dve leti pozneje je delegac`a Komis` e v Pekingu konzorc` obvestila, da bo prekinila pogodbo o opravljanju storitev, ker strokovnjak ni opravljal svojih nalog, opredeljenih v aneksu.
The complainant asked the Commission for access to the documents on which the termination of the contract was based. The Commission rejected this request.
Pritožnik je Komis` o zaprosil za dostop do dokumentov, na podlagi katerih naj bi bila pogodba prekinjena, Komis` a pa njegovi prošnji ni ugodila.
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to comply with Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents22
Pritožnik je v pritožbi Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic trdil, da Komis` a ni ravnala skladno
The Commission maintained that the documents could not be disclosed because they would aT ect the expert’s personal integrity and his commercial interests.
Komis` a je vztrajala, da dokumentov ne more razkriti, ker bi lahko škodili strokovnjakovi osebni integriteti in njegovim poslovnim interesom.
It added that the documents could only be made available to a judicial authority, following a court order to produce them.
Dodala je, da jih lahko posreduje samo pravosodnim organom na podlagi sodnega naloga.
As to the termination of the contract, the Commission had wrimen to the consortium twice to complain that the expert was not fulfilling his new responsibilities but the situation had not improved.
Prekinitev pogodbe je Komis` a upraviÏevala z dejstvom, da se je konzorc` u dvakrat pritožila, Ïeš da strokovnjak ne izpolnjuje svojih novih dolžnosti, vendar se stanje ni izboljšalo.
Following an inspection of the Commission’s fi le and having examined all the evidence, the Ombudsman arrived at the conclusion that, whereas there was no maladministration as regards the termination of the contract, the Commission had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its refusal to grant access to the relevant documents.
Po pregledu spisov Komis` e in vseh dokazov je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic sklenil, da nepravilnosti pri prekinitvi pogodbe sicer ni bilo, vendar Komis` a ni posredovala utemeljenega pojasnila, zakaj je zavrnila dostop do zadevnih dokumentov.
He therefore addressed a draW recommendation to the Commission asking it to reconsider the complainant’s request.
Zato je na Komis` o naslovil osnutek priporoÏila in jo prosil, da ponovno obravnava pritožnikovo zahtevo.
Having concluded that it was not appropriate to submit a special report to the European Parliament, the Ombudsman closed the case with a critical remark.
Pritožnik je pozdravil privolitev Komis`e, vendar je poudaril, da ne zadostuje.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY state of the proceedings to which it had referred.
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
He made a critical remark. However, he considered that there was not enough evidence to show that the statement constituted a deliberate lie.
Menil je, da ni posredovala utemeljenega pojasnila, zakaj je v nekaterih dokumentih prekrila ime sodirektorja in zakaj ni dovolila vsaj delnega dostopa do preostalih treh dokumentov.
Concerning the complainant’s further allegations no maladministration was found.
Ker je ocenil, da ni primerno predložiti posebnega poroÏila Evropskemu parlamentu, je primer zakljuÏil s kritiÏno oceno.
HANDLING OF COMPLAINT AGAINST PRIVATE FIRM
ZAVAJAJOJA IZJAVA V MNENJU O PREJŠNJI PRITOŽBI
Summary of decision on complaint 3622/2004/GG against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2862/2004/GG zoper Evropsko komis` o
He wished to pay his bills by direct debit from his German bank account.
Prošnja je bila zavrnjena in pritožnica je leta 2001 vložila pritožbo zoper ravnanje Komis` e v njenem primeru (primer 1702/2001/GG).
However, Tele 2 refused to provide him with the information necessary to carry out such transactions, i.e., its IBAN (International Bank Account Number) and its BIC (Bank Identifier Code).
Izjavila je, da je zunanje ministrstvo na njeno zahtevo, naj posreduje informac` e o pritožniÏini ustreznosti, odgovorilo, da trenutno proti pritožnici poteka preiskava, zato ne more dajati priporoÏil.
Considering that the behaviour of Tele 2 constituted an infringement of EU rules on the internal market, the complainant submimed a complaint against Tele 2 to the Commission.
Komis` a je dodala, da kljub nepretrganim stikom med ECHO in nemškim zunanjim ministrstvom zaradi preverjanja nemških nevladnih organizac` nemške oblasti niso posredovale dodatnih informac` o pritožnici.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to handle his complaint properly.
V novi pritožbi, vloženi septembra 2004, je pritožnica navedla informac`e, ki jih je prejela od nemškega zunanjega ministrstva, in sicer da se ni Ïutilo obvezano posredovati dodatnih informac` ECHO, ta pa se ni pozanimal o stanju postopkov, na katere se je skliceval.
It only laid down a principle of nondiscrimination between national and cross-border payment instruments.
O tem, da pritožniÏine prošnje ne bo veÏ obravnavala, se je odloÏila na podlagi informac` , prejetih od nemškega zunanjega ministrstva.
Since Tele 2 was not invoicing on a cross-border basis, it was entitled to refuse to give its international banking coordinates to the complainant.
Pojasnila je, da je Ïakala na nadaljnja navodila zunanjega ministrstva in da ni nikoli trdila drugaÏe.
The Commission stated that, at present, direct debit did not exist in the EU on a cross-border basis.
Varuh je ugotovil, da je mogoÏe sklepati, da se besedna zveza „nepretrgani stiki“ v mnenju Komis` e nanaša na stike v zvezi s primerom pritožnice, toda Komis` a sploh ni skušala zanikati, da takšnih stikov po tistem, omenjenem v internem sporoÏilu, ni bilo.
It added that it was currently working on the creation of a single payment area, including a pan-European direct debit scheme, to which eT ect it intended to propose a directive in 2005.
Poleg tega ni mogel razumeti, zakaj je Komis` a priÏakovala dokonÏen odgovor od instituc`e, ki je izjavila, da pritožnice sploh ne pozna.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s conclusion that there was no infringement of Community law by Tele 2 was reasonable.
Zato je sklenil, da je bila izjava Komis`e, da nemške oblasti kljub nepretrganim stikom niso posredovale nadaljnjih informac` , zavajajoÏa, in napisal kritiÏno oceno.
He found it regremable that direct debit did not appear to exist in the EU on a cross-border basis but noted that the Commission had announced steps to amend this situation in the near future.
Vseeno je menil, da ni zadostnih dokazov o tem, da je bila ta izjava namerna laž. V zvezi z drugimi trditvami pritožnice pa ni ugotovil kršitev.
However, as regards procedural aspects, the Ombudsman found that there was nothing to suggest that the procedural safeguards as regards the handling of infringement complaints had been respected in the present case.
Nemški državljan, živeÏ v Franc`i, je bil stranka francoskega telekomunikac`skega podjetja Tele 2, njegove storitve pa je želel plaÏevati z neposredno obremenitv`o s svojega nemškega banÏnega raÏuna.
The Commission’s 2002 Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of
Ker je Tele 2 s takšnim ravnanjem kršil pravila EU o notranjem trgu, je pritožnik Komis` i poslal pritožbo zoper njega.
Community law23 provides that lemers criticising the behaviour of private firms do not need to be registered as a complaint but that, where the Commission decides not to register a lemer as a complaint, the author has to be informed accordingly.
Kar zadeva vsebino primera, je Komis` a menila, da Tele 2 ni kršil zadevne uredbe, saj podjet` ne obvezuje, da sprejmejo doloÏen plaÏilni instrument. Uredba namreÏ doloÏa samo naÏelo nediskriminac`e med nacionalnimi in Ïezmejnimi plaÏilnimi instrumenti.
The Ombudsman noted that there was nothing to show that this had been done in the present case.
Komis` a je izjavila, da trenutno Ïezmejna neposredna obremenitev v EU ne obstaja.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman considered that it would have been good administrative practice for the Commission to inform the complainant about the result of its inquiries to the French authorities regarding the behaviour of Tele 2.
Dodala je, da si trenutno prizadeva za vzpostavitev enotnega plaÏilnega obmoÏja, ki bo vkljuÏeval tudi vseevropski sistem neposrednih obremenitev, in da bo leta 2005 predlagala direktivo o tem.
However, no such information appeared to have been provided before the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.
Varuh je ocenil, da je ugotovitev Komis`e, da Tele 2 ni kršil zakonodaje Skupnosti, utemeljena.
The Ombudsman therefore closed this case with a critical remark.
Obžaloval je sicer, da Ïezmejna neposredna obremenitev v EU ne obstaja, vendar je Komis` a napovedala ukrepe, s katerimi bo to stanje v bližnji prihodnosti popravila.
INELIGIBILITY OF PROFIT-MAKING ENTITIES
Ugotovil je, da v tem primeru to ni bilo storjeno.
Summary of decision on complaint 2673/2004/PB against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2673/2004/PB zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainant was informed by the Commission that his group would not fulfil the eligibility criteria of an EU programme aimed at disseminating information to the general public about EU enlargement, because it was a long-standing administrative practice to exclude profit-making entities from such programmes.
Pritožnika je Komis` a obvestila, da njegova skupina ne bo izpolnila merila upraviÏenosti za program EU, namenjen razširjanju informac` o širitvi EU javnosti, ker je dolgotrajna upravna praksa takšna, da so pridobitne fi z i Ï ne in pravne osebe iz teh programov izkljuÏene. Pritožnik je v pritožbi Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic menil, da je praksa Komis` e napaÏna.
The Commission explained that the exclusion of profit-making entities had not been a question of “administrative practice” but was based on a number of specific considerations.
Komis` a je pojasnila, da izkljuÏitev pridobitnih fi z i Ï ni h in pravnih oseb ni vprašanje „upravne prakse“, ampak temelji na veÏ argumentih.
Firstly, EU fi financial aid may not result in profit by its recipients.
PrviÏ, prejemniki fi na n Ï ne pomoÏi EU na raÏun te pomoÏi ne smejo imeti dobiÏka.
The Commission considered that the risk of profit was greater in the case of private profit-making entities than in the case of civil society actors, which the Commission considered not to include profit-making entities.
Ker je Komis` a ocenila, da je tveganje, da bo prejemnik dosegel dobiÏek, veÏje pri zasebnih pridobitnih fi z i Ï ni h in pravnih osebah kot pri akterjih civilne družbe, se je odloÏila, da bo prve izkljuÏila.
Secondly, civil society oT ers a multiplier eTect, which was considered useful for the programme here concerned.
DrugiÏ, civilna družba omogoÏa veÏji uÏinek, kar je bilo pri zadevnem programu koristno.
Thirdly, information on EU enlargement distributed by civil society actors that work in the public interest is more credible for citizens than information distributed by profit-making entities.
TretjiÏ, informac` e o širitvi EU, ki jih posredujejo akterji civilne družbe, delujoÏi v javnem interesu, so za državljane bolj verodostojne kot informac`e, ki jih posredujejo pridobitne fi z i Ï ne in pravne osebe.
The Ombudsman noted that EU institutions enjoy a wide discretion in laying down selection criteria and other conditions in calls for proposals. The Ombudsman could, however, examine whether the institutions have acted within the limits of that discretion.
Varuh je ugotovil, da imajo instituc` e EU precej svobode pri doloÏanju izbirnih meril in drugih pogojev razpisov za zbiranje predlogov, da pa lahko seveda varuh preuÏi, ali so pri tem ravnale v okviru svojih pooblastil.
With regard to the Commission’s first consideration that there would be a greater risk of profit being made in the case of profit-making entities, the Ombudsman first pointed out that it was legitimate for the Commission to decide that the programme should not result in profit by the recipients of the EU funds.
Glede mnenja Komis`e, da je tveganje dobiÏka veÏje pri pridobitnih fi z i Ï ni h in pravnih osebah, je varuh poudaril, da je bila Komis` a upraviÏena do odloÏitve, da program ne sme prispevati k dobiÏku prejemnikov sredstev EU.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that this aim could presumably also have been amained by way of an express condition in the grant agreements concerned.
Vseeno je menil, da bi bilo to verjetno doseženo že z izrecnim pogojem v pogodbah o dodelitvi sredstev.
The Commission’s concern therefore seemed to be based on the presumption that profit-making entities would be less likely to respect the conditions of the grant agreement than civil society actors.
Iz odloÏitve Komis` e je bilo tako mogoÏe sklepati, da po njenih domnevah pridobitne osebe manj verjetno spoštujejo pogoje pogodbe o dodelitvi sredstev kot akterji civilne družbe.
The Ombudsman expressed doubts as to whether such a presumption would in fact be justified.
Varuh je izrazil dvom, da so takšne domneve upraviÏene.
However, in the light of the finding relating to the second and third considerations, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to inquire further into that issue.
Ob upoštevanju ugotovitev v zvezi z drugim in tretjim argumentom se varuhu nadaljnja preiskava tega vprašanja ni zdela potrebna.
With regard to the second and third considerations set out by the Commission, these essentially concerned the advantages likely to be derived from focussing the programme on civil society actors working in the public interest.
Drugi in tretji argument Komis` e sta se v bistvu nanašala na prednosti, ki jih bo program najverjetneje imel, Ïe bo namenjen akterjem civilne družbe, delujoÏim v javnem interesu.
It did not appear to have been unreasonable for the Commission to consider that these advantages could be best obtained by focusing on civil society actors.
Mnenje Komis`e, da bodo te prednosti najbolje dosežene, Ïe se bo osredotoÏila na sektor civilne družbe, ni bilo neupraviÏeno.
The European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF)
LACK OF INDICATION BY OLAF OF LIKELY LENGTH OF INQUIRY
NENAVEDBA PREDVIDENEGA TRAJANJA PREISKAVE URADA OLAF
Summary of decision on complaint 140/2004/PB against the European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF)
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 140/2004/PB zoper Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF)
An oU cial complained against OLAF in respect of its handling of information that he had submimed to it about suspected illegalities in a Community body for which he had worked.
Uradnik se je pritožil zoper urad OLAF zaradi naÏina, kako je ta obravnaval posredovane mu informac` e o domnevnem nezakonitem ravnanju v organu Skupnosti, kjer je pritožnik delal. Pritožnik je med drugim trdil, da ga OLAF ni obvestil o predvidenem trajanju preiskave v zvezi z njegovo pritožbo.
The relevant provision in force at the time contained the “whistle-blowing” condition that the oU cial had “allowed a reasonable period of time for [OLAF] or the Commission to take appropriate action” before the oU cial could inform the heads of other specified Community institutions about the alleged wrongdoings.
Takrat veljavna upoštevna doloÏba je vsebovala pogoj za pr`avo nepravilnosti, in sicer da mora uradnik poÏakati razumno dolgo obdobje, da OLAF ali Komis` a ustrezno ukrepata, preden o domnevnih nepravilnostih obvesti vodstvo doloÏenih instituc` Skupnosti.
It furthermore defined “reasonable period” as “the period which the OU ce or the Commission, as the case may be, has indicated as being necessary to carry out the investigations” and provided that “[t]he oU cial or servant shall be duly informed”.
Opredeljevala je tudi razumno obdobje kot obdobje, ki ga OLAF ali Komis` a ocenita kot potrebno za izvedbo preiskave, in doloÏala, da mora biti uradnik ali uslužbenec o njem ustrezno obvešÏen.
OLAF essentially argued that this provision was not at issue, because the complainant had not alleged that he had s u T ered any adverse consequences from having disclosed the information outside the Commission or OLAF.
OLAF se je branil, da omenjena doloÏba v tem primeru ne pride v poštev, ker pritožnik ni trdil, da je zaradi razkritja informac` zunaj Komis` e oziroma urada OLAF utrpel škodljive posledice.
It also stated that even if the provision were applicable, it had been fully respected in this case, since the complainant had never indicated that he believed that a reasonable period had passed.
In Ïetudi bi se doloÏba v tem primeru uporabila, ne bi bila kršena, saj pritožnik ni nikoli navedel, da je po njegovem mnenju razumno obdobje poteklo.
The Ombudsman considered: (i) that the provision in question was intended to make it possible for the oU cial concerned to know when he or she could disclose the information outside the Commission or OLAF, without s u T ering any adverse consequences; (ii) that the provision did not require that the oU cial concerned should already have s u T ered adverse consequences or have requested the information about the reasonable period of time; and (iii) that the provision clearly imposed an obligation on OLAF to provide the oUcial, in all cases, with information as to the period of time within which it expected to conclude its investigation into a “whistle-blowing” complaint.
Evropski varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ocenil: (i) da je namen zadevne doloÏbe zagotoviti, da so uradniki seznanjeni s tem, kdaj lahko razkr`ejo informac` e zunaj Komis` e ali urada OLAF, ne da bi utrpeli škodljive posledice; (ii) da doloÏba ne doloÏa, da morajo uradniki že utrpeti škodljive posledice ali zahtevati informac` e o razumnem Ïasovnem obdobju; (iii) da doloÏba jasno obvezuje OLAF, da uradnikom v vseh primerih posreduje informac` e o tem, kako dolgo naj bi predvidoma trajala preiskava njihovih pr`av.
While recalling that the highest authority on the meaning and interpretation of Community law is the Court of Justice, the Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark concerning OLAF’s handling of the case.
Varuh je opomnil, da je za pomen in tolmaÏenje zakonodaje Skupnosti najbolj pristojno SodišÏe Evropskih skupnosti, in podal kritiÏno oceno o ravnanju urada OLAF v tem primeru.
The amended StaT Regulations (2004) contain specific rules governing this mamer (Title II, “Rights and obligations of oUcials”). cials”).
Dopolnjeni kadrovski predpisi (2004) vsebujejo posebna pravila o tej zadevi (Naslov II, „Pravice in obveznosti uradnikov“).
E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE WITH AN APPLICANT FOR A JOB
E-POŠTNA KORESPONDENCA S PROSILCEM ZA ZAPOSLITEV
Summary of decision on complaint 1700/2004/MF against the European Investment Bank
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1700/2004/MF zoper Evropsko investic`sko banko
The complainant was short-listed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in a selection procedure.
Pritožnik se je v izbirnem postopku Evropske investic`ske banke (EIB) uvrstil v ožji izbor. 30. maja 2002 je po e-pošti poizvedoval, koliko je možnosti, da bo dobil službo pri EIB.
On the same day, the Head of the Resources Unit of the EIB sent two e-mails to the complainant.
Istega dne mu je vodja kadrovske službe EIB poslal dve e-poštni sporoÏili.
In the first, he wrote “He has gone completely mad” and noted that the complainant had sent his application to more than 18 Heads of Unit.
V prvem je zapisal, da se je pritožniku „povsem zmešalo“ in da je svojo prošnjo poslal veÏ kot osemnajstim vodjem enot. V drugem je pritožniku
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant’s primary allegation was that the Head of the Resources Unit of the EIB had behaved in an abusive and intimidatory way towards him in the two e-mails dated 30 May 2002.
V pritožbi Evropskemu varuhu Ïlovekovih pravic je pritožnik trdil, da je bil vodja kadrovske službe EIB v e-poštnih sporoÏilih 30. maja 2002 žaljiv in da mu je grozil.
The EIB explained that the first of the two e-mails had been sent to the complainant by mistake and that the EIB sincerely regremed its content.
EIB je pojasnila, da je bilo prvo e-poštno sporoÏilo pritožniku poslano pomotoma, kar iskreno obžalujejo.
As for the second e-mail, the complainant had not been subjected to any kind of intimidation. The Head of Unit had simply sent this e-mail in an eTort to assist the complainant by advising him that frequent contacting of the EIB in relation to the possibility of his employment with it could jeopardise his chances.
V drugem e-poštnem sporoÏilu pa po mnenju banke pritožnik ni bil predmet groženj, temveÏ mu je vodja enote skušal samo pomagati z nasvetom, da si lahko s pogostimi vprašanji EIB, koliko možnosti za zaposlitev ima, le škoduje.
The Ombudsman considered that the content of the first e-mail would have clearly constituted inappropriate language if it had been deliberately addressed to the complainant.
Varuh je ocenil, da bi bilo prvo e-poštno sporoÏilo nedvomno neprimerno in žaljivo, Ïe bi bilo namerno poslano pritožniku, ker pa je bilo poslano pomotoma, ni razloga za nadaljnjo preiskavo tega vidika pritožbe.
The Ombudsman noted that the EIB’s second e-mail of 30 May 2002 established a link between the complainant’s e-mails and his application, namely that it could be rejected if he continued to send e-mails requesting information.
Drugo e-poštno sporoÏilo EIB z dne 30. maja 2002 pa je vzpostavilo razmerje med pritožnikovo e-pošto in njegovo prošnjo, namreÏ da utegne biti slednja zavrnjena, Ïe bo še naprej pošiljal e-poštne zahteve za informac` e.
The Ombudsman pointed out that, by using terms which could be understood as conveying a threat by the average reader when answering the complainant’s request for information on his application, the EIB had failed to respect Articles 11 and 12(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. The Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark.
Varuh je poudaril, da je EIB z odgovorom na pritožnikovo zahtevo za informac`e, ki bi ga lahko povpreÏni bralec razumel kot grožnjo, kršila Ïlena 11 in 12(1) evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, zato je napisal kritiÏno oceno.
HANDLING OF A REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO INFORMATION BY THE EIB
ZAVRNITEV ZAHTEVE ZA DOSTOP DO INFORMACL, NASLOVLJENE NA EIB
Summary of decision on complaint 3442/2004/PB against the European Investment Bank
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 3442/2004/PB zoper Evropsko investic`sko banko
The complainant had asked for information on loans that the European Investment Bank (EIB) had made available, through intermediary banks, for small and medium-sized renewable energy projects.
Pritožnik je prosil za informac` e o posojilih, ki jih Evropska investic`ska banka (EIB) prek posredniških bank ponuja za male in srednje velike projekte obnovljivih virov energ`e. Trdil je, da je EIB neupraviÏeno zavrnila njegovo prošnjo.
The EIB explained its policy that “[d]isclosure of detailed information on global loan allocations is the competence of the intermediary bank (…). The EIB provides, on request, aggregate data on global loan financing, including country and sector breakdowns.”
EIB je pojasnila svojo politiko, da je razkritje podrobnih informac` o dodeljevanju teh posojil v pristojnosti posredniških bank, sama pa na zahtevo zagotavlja skupne podatke o financiranju svetovnih posojil po državah in sektorjih.
According to the EIB, this practice was based on the consideration that the fi final beneficiaries’ contractual relationship was with the intermediary bank, not with the EIB and that the EIB should not disclose information that was part of the confidential relationship between the intermediary bank and the final beneficiary.
EIB je pojasnila, da je stvar tako urejena zato, ker konÏni prejemniki posojil pogodbeno razmerje sklenejo s posredniško banko, ne z EIB, in ker EIB ne sme razkriti informac` iz zaupnega razmerja med posredniško banko in konÏnim prejemnikom.