natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In case 2191/2003/TN, an expert employed by the Commission resigned a W er becoming subject to insults and threats in a non-EU country.
V primeru 2191/2003/TN je dal strokovnjak, zaposlen pri Komis`i, odpoved, potem ko je bil pri delu v državi, ki ni Ïlanica EU, predmet žalitev in groženj.
At the end of his inquiry, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate action to assist the complainant.
Ob koncu preiskave je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da je Komis` a pri nudenju pomoÏi pritožniku ukrepala ustrezno. Je pa poudaril, da bi morala za boljše odnose s pritožnikom že prej pojasniti, kako mu je pomagala, tako da pritožnik ne bi imel vtisa, da si je po njenem mnenju težave sam nakopal.
The Commission subsequently apologised and promised to take note of the remark for the future.
Komis` a se je nato opraviÏila in obljubila, da bo pripombo v prihodnje upoštevala.
Case 471/2004/OV was a follow-up to an earlier complaint (case 1200/2003/OV, reported in the Annual Report 2004) in which the Ombudsman found that the complainant’s rights of defence had not been respected when the European Union Police Mission in Sarajevo (EUPM) terminated his contract early.
Primer 471/2004/OV je bil nadaljevanje pritožbe (primer 1200/2003/OV, omenjen v Letnem poroÏilu za leto 2004), v kateri je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ugotovil kršitev pritožnikove pravice do obrambe, ko je polic`ska mis`a EU v Sarajevu (EUPM) predÏasno prekinila njegovo pogodbo.
Two other decisions dealt with certain special procedures applicable to staT of the Communities.
Potem ko je varuh za pomoÏ prosil Svet, je mis`a EUPM privolila, da pritožniku izplaÏa plaÏo, ki bi jo prejel do obiÏajnega
COMPLAINTS AND INQUIRIES notified of, and given a reasonable opportunity to comment on, the investigators’ preliminary factual findings and the substance of the relevant supporting evidence.
Ni pa nujno, da se pritožniku posreduje ves material, ki je služil preiskovalcem, in sicer pod pogojem, da so ti pritožnika pred dokonÏanjem poroÏila o preiskavi seznanili s svojimi predhodnimi ugotovitvami o dejstvih in vsebino zadevnih dokazov, ter pod pogojem, da je imel pritožnik priložnost na njih dati pripombo.
Chapter 3 also contains eleven summaries of decisions on complaints that fall outside the categories dealt with in the preceding sub-sections.
V tretjem poglavju je povzetih enajst odloÏb v zvezi s pritožbami, ki ne sod`o v nobeno od doslej obravnavanih kategor`. .
Three of the cases concerned the European Schools.
Tr`e sklepi zadevajo evropske šole.
In case 1435/2003/MF, the Commission accepted, and took satisfactory measures to implement, a draW recommendation that it should endeavour to clarify the conditions of admission of pupils in the language sections of the European Schools.
V primeru 1435/2003/MF je Komisija sprejela osnutek priporoÏila za razjasnitev pogojev pri sprejemanju uÏencev v jezikovne oddelke evropskih šol in je v skladu s priporoÏilom tudi zadovoljivo ukrepala.
In case 1155/2004/TN, the Commission clarified, at the Ombudsman’s request, that the future reform measures mentioned during the own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2003/LH (see the Ombudsman’s Annual Report 2004) would include observance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in all the European Schools.
V primeru 1155/2004/TN je Komis` a na zahtevo varuha Ïlovekovih pravic pojasnila, da naj bi pri prihodnjih reformnih ukrepih, omenjenih med preiskavo na lastno pobudo OI/5/2003/LH (glejte Letno poroÏilo 2004), v vseh evropskih šolah upoštevali listino o temeljnih pravicah.
The third case (1391/2002/JMA and others) gave rise to a Special Report to the European Parliament, following a draW recommendation that the Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that parents of children with special educational needs who are excluded from the European Schools because of their degree of disability should not be required to contribute to the educational costs of their children.
Tretji primer (1391/2002/JMA in drugi) je spodbudil k posebnemu poroÏilu Evropskemu parlamentu, ki je sledil osnutku priporoÏila Komis`i, naj ukrene vse potrebno, da staršem otrok s posebnimi uÏnimi potrebami, ki zaradi invalidnosti niso vkljuÏeni v evropske šole, ne bi bilo treba prispevati za stroške šolanja.
The question of equality of treatment for disabled persons also arose in the context of complaints that the Commission and the Council had failed to ensure a s u U cient number of parking spaces for people with disabilities near the main Commission and Council buildings in Brussels (joint summary of cases 2415/2003/JMA and 237/2004/JMA).
Vprašanje enakopravne obravnave invalidnih oseb se je pojavilo tudi v zvezi z pritožbami proti Komis` i in Svetu, ker naj ne bi zagotovila dovolj parkirnih mest za invalidne osebe v bližini svojih najpomembnejših stavb v Bruslju (skupni povzetek primerov 2415/2003/JMA in 237/2004/JMA).
The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s and the Council’s requests to the Belgian authorities to ensure additional parking places and asked to be kept informed of the results.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je pozdravil prošnji za dodatna parkirna mesta, ki sta ju Komis` a in Svet naslovila na belg`ske oblasti, in instituc` i prosil, naj ga obvešÏata o rešitvi vprašanja.
The Ombudsman also invited the Council to reconsider its policy of limiting access to parking spaces for disabled people on grounds of security.
Varuh je prav tako pozval Svet, naj ponovno preuÏi politiko omejevanja dostopa do parkirnih mest za invalidne osebe iz varnostnih razlogov.
Two decisions concerned the European Anti-Fraud OU ce (OLAF).
Dve odloÏbi sta zadevala Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF).
In case 2485/2004/GG, OLAF refused, in eTect, to accept a draW recommendation that it should acknowledge it had made incorrect and misleading statements in its submissions during the Ombudsman’s inquiry into an earlier case.
V primeru 2485/2004/GG OLAF pravzaprav ni želel sprejeti osnutka priporoÏila, naj prizna, da je med preiskavo varuha pri nekem prejšnjem primeru podal nepravilne in zavajajoÏe izjave.
The Ombudsman considered that the case raised an important issue of principle, aTecting the trust of citizens in the EU institutions and bodies.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je menil, da ta primer naÏenja pomembno vprašanje naÏelnosti, ki vpliva na zaupanje državljanov v instituc` e in organe EU.
He therefore made a Special Report to the European Parliament.
Zato je pripravil posebno poroÏilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
In case 3446/2004/GG, OLAF accepted and took satisfactory measures to implement a draW recommendation to review and correct information contained in a press review published on its website.
V primeru 3446/2004/GG je OLAF sprejel osnutek priporoÏila, naj ponovno preuÏi in popravi podatke o tiskovnem povzetku na svojem spletnem mestu, in je v skladu s priporoÏilom tudi ustrezno ukrepal.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN IN Q U IR 3
B E PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH J
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ODLOJBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH
Within each sub-section of this chapter, cases are presented in case number order.
Primeri znotraj vsakega podrazdelka tega poglavja so navedeni v vrstnem redu po številki primera.
The case number is given under the title of each case summary.
Številka primera sledi naslovu povzetka primera.
2191/2003/TN, which precedes case 274/2004/JMA.
Tako je na primer v podrazdelku 3.1.1 primer 1687/2003/JMA pred primerom 2191/2003/TN, ta pa pred primerom 274/2004/JMA.
The full decision in each of the cases can be found via the “Decisions index” on the Ombudsman’s website (hmp://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/default.htm).
Seznam vseh odloÏb in njihova vsebina v celoti so na voljo na spletnem mestu Evropskega varuha Ïlovekovih pravic (hm p://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/default.htm).
The relevant decision can be accessed using the case number.
Ustrezno odloÏbo je mogoÏe najti pod številko primera.
Full decisions are included on the website in English and in the language of the complaint, if d iT erent. A printout of the full decision, as it appears on the website, may be requested from the Ombudsman’s OU ce.
OdloÏbe so na spletnem mestu objavljene v angleškem jeziku in v jeziku pritožnika, Ïe ta ni anglešÏina, njihov izpis pa je mogoÏe naroÏiti pri uradu varuha Ïlovekovih pravic.
In the second half of 2006, the full decisions in the cases included in this section will be made available as a single electronic document on the Ombudsman’s website in English, French and German. This will be accessible via the “Annual reports” section of the Ombudsman’s website.
V drugi polovici leta 2006 bodo besedila odloÏb iz tega razdelka v angleškem, francoskem in nemškem jeziku na voljo v enem samem elektronskem dokumentu na varuhovem spletnem mestu, in sicer v razdelku „Letna poroÏila”.
Again, a hard copy or CD-ROM of this document may be requested from the Ombudsman’s OU ce.
Tudi ta dokument se lahko v papirni obliki ali na CD-ROM-u naroÏi v njegovem uradu.
CASES WHERE NO MALADMINISTRATION WASFOUND
PRIMERI, V KATERIH NISO BILE UGOTOVLJENE NEPRAVILNOSTI
FAILURE TO ACT ON A COMPLAINT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
PRITOŽBA O DISKRIMINACLI ZARADI SPOLNE USMERJENOSTI, PRI KATERI KOMISL A NI UKREPALA
Summary of decision on complaint 1687/2003/JMA against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 1687/2003/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complainants, a Spanish national and an Argentine national, complained to the Commission against the decision by the Spanish authorities to refuse the Argentine national a family reunification visa, which he needed in order to be able to move to Spain with his Spanish partner.
Pritožnika, španski in argentinski državljan, sta se Komis` pritožila nad od l o Ï it v ` o španskih oblasti, da argentinskemu državljanu ne odobr`o vizuma za združitev družine, ki ga je potreboval, da bi se lahko naselil v Špan`i skupaj s svojim španskim partnerjem.
According to the complainants, the refusal was based on the fact that they are of the same gender and thus constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Po navedbah pritožnikov je bila zavrnitev osnovana na dejstvu, da sta partnerja istospolna, kar pomeni diskriminac`o zaradi spolne usmerjenosti.
The complainants alleged that the Commission had not handled their complaint properly, in that it had interpreted the applicable Community rules in an unduly restrictive manner.
Pritožnika sta navedla, da Komis` a z njuno pritožbo ni ravnala ustrezno in da je predpise Skupnosti, ki se nanašajo na vprašanje, tolmaÏila pretirano omejujoÏe.
They insisted that the Community rules in force were applicable to their situation and that the Commission should have instituted proceedings against the Spanish authorities for infringement of Community law, notably Article 13 of the EC Treaty which prohibits all discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the provisions of Directive 2000/78 on equal treatment in employment1, and Directive 2000/43 concerning discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin2.
Vztrajala sta, da je veljavna pravila Skupnosti v njunem primeru mogoÏe uporabiti in da bi morala Komis` a sprožiti postopek proti španskim oblastem zaradi kršitve zakonodaje Skupnosti, še posebej Ïlena 13 Pogodbe ES, ki prepoveduje vsakršno diskriminac`o, tudi na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti, ter Ïlenov 20 in 21 listine o temeljnih pravicah, doloÏb direktive št. 2000/78 o enakem obravnavanju pri zaposlovanju1in direktive 2000/43 o diskriminac`i na podlagi rasne ali etniÏne pripadnosti.2
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2002 L 303, p. 16.
Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu, UL 2002 L 303, str. 16.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2002 L 180, p. 22.
Direktiva Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. jun` a 2000 o izvajanju naÏela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost, UL 2002 L 180, str. 22.
The Commission argued that the problem encountered by the complainants fell beyond the scope of Community law and suggested that they seek redress at the national level or before the European Court of Human Rights.
Komis` a je menila, da vprašanje, s katerim sta se sooÏila pritožnika, ne sodi v podroÏje uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti, in jima svetovala, naj se znova obrneta na nacionalne oblasti ali na Evropsko sodišÏe za Ïlovekove pravice.
The Ombudsman noted that the principle of non-discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation, constitutes a fundamental principle of Community law, enshrined both in the Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je opozoril, da sodi naÏelo nediskriminac`e, ki med drugim zajema spolno usmerjenost, med poglavitna naÏela zakonodaje Skupnosti in je poudarjeno tako v Pogodbi kot v listini o temeljnih pravicah.
Article 13 of the EC Treaty empowers the Council to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sexual orientation but only within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty.
Jlen 13 Pogodbe ES pooblašÏa Svet, da sprejme ustrezne ukrepe za boj proti diskriminac`i zaradi spolne usmerjenosti, vendar le v okviru pristojnosti, ki mu jih daje Pogodba.
Similarly,Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are addressed to Member States only when they are implementing Union law.
Podobno Ïlena 20 in 21 listine o temeljnih pravicah obvezujeta države Ïlanice le pri izvajanju zakonodaje Un`e.
As regards the individual directives addressing the principle of non-discrimination, the Ombudsman pointed out that, to date, only one legal instrument, Directive 2000/78, addresses discrimination based on grounds of sexual orientation but that this legal instrument only applies to mamers pertaining to employment.
Kar zadeve posamezne direktive, ki obravnavajo naÏelo enakosti, je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic poudaril, da je doslej zaÏel veljati le en zakonski instrument, in sicer direktiva št. 2000/78 o diskriminac`i zaradi spolne usmerjenosti, vendar se nanaša le na zadeve v zvezi z zaposlovanjem.
The Ombudsman also reviewed the existing Community directives concerning the entry of a third-country national into the territory of the Union, in order to join a Union citizen or resident, namely Directive 2003/86, on the right to family reunification3 and Directive 2004/38 on the right to free movement of EU citizens4. The scope of these directives, however, is limited, since they only apply, respectively, to third-country nationals who already reside lawfully in the territory of the Member States and to Union citizens who have moved to, or resided in, a Member State other than their state of origin.
PreuÏil je tudi veljavne direktive Skupnosti za primere, ko državljan tretje države vstopi na ozemlje Un`e, da bi se pridružil državljanu ali prebivalcu Un`e, še posebej direktivo št. 2003/86 o pravici do združitve družine3in direktivo št. 2004/38 o pravici do prostega gibanja državljanov EU.4 Domet teh dveh direktiv je omejen, saj se nanašata le na državljane tretjih držav, ki že zakonito prebivajo na ozemlju držav Ïlanic, in na državljane Un`e, ki so se preselili ali bivali v državi Ïlanici, ki ni njihova država izvora.
The Ombudsman therefore found that the justification given by the Commission for rejecting the complaint against the Spanish authorities appeared to be reasonable and that there appeared to be no maladministration.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je zato ocenil, da so razlogi Komis` e za zavrnitev pritožbe proti španskim oblastem upraviÏeni in da ni šlo za primer nepravilnosti.
TERMINATION OF A CONTRACT
PRENEHANJE POGODBE
Summary of decision on complaint 2191/2003/TN (Confidential) against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 2191/2003/TN (zaupno) zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the termination of the complainant’s contract with the Commission, according to which he was employed to provide assistance to a ministry in a non-EU country.
Pritožba je zadevala prenehanje pogodbe pritožnika s Komis` o.
The complainant argued that, following the submission of a policy paper as part of his work, he became subject to insults and threats and was therefore forced to resign.
Ta je pritožnika zaposlila za nudenje pomoÏi ministrstvu v državi, ki ni Ïlanica EU.
The complainant alleged that the Commission had allowed this situation to occur.
Pritožnik se je pritožil, da je moral dati odpoved, potem ko je pri delu predložil poroÏilo o politiki, zaradi katerega je bil podvržen žalitvam in grožnjam. Menil je, da je Komis` a dopustila, da je do tega prišlo, in da bi moral prejemati plaÏo do prvotno predvidenega datuma izteka pogodbe.
The Commission argued that, by making the policy paper public, the complainant had breached his obligation of confidentiality and had gone beyond his contractual objectives and responsibilities.
Komis` a je menila, da je pritožnik s tem, ko je dal poroÏilo v javnost, kršil pravilo o zaupnosti ter prekoraÏil naloge in odgovornosti, predvidene v pogodbi.
The Commission could therefore not be held responsible for the insults and threats.
Komis` a naj zato ne bi bila odgovorna za žalitve in grožnje.
The Ombudsman understood the Commission to argue that, since the complainant had breached his contractual obligations and was therefore the author of his own misfortune, it was not obliged to assist him.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je sprejel razlago Komis`e, da pritožniku ni dolžna pomagati, saj je kršil pogodbene obveznosti in si tako sam nakopal težave.
The Ombudsman made a provisional finding of maladministration on the basis that the Commission had failed to assist the complainant in accordance with the General Conditions governing individual experts’ contracts.
Je pa sprejel predhodno ugotovitev o nepravilnosti, ker Komis` a pritožniku ni pomagala v skladu s splošnimi pogoji, ki veljajo za individualne pogodbe za strokovnjake.
He also made a proposal for a friendly solution.
Predlagal je sporazumno rešitev.
In reply to the proposal, the Commission recognised that it had an obligation to provide assistance to the complainant under the General Conditions governing individual experts’ contracts and explained in what way it considered itself to have provided such assistance.
V odgovoru na predlog je Komis` a priznala, da je pritožniku dolžna pomagati v skladu s splošnimi pogoji, ki veljajo za individualne pogodbe strokovnjakov, in pojasnila, zakaj meni, da je ponudila ustrezno pomoÏ.
Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.
Direktiva Sveta 2003/86/ES z dne 22. septembra 2003 o pravici do združitve družine, UL 2003 L 251, str. 12.
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance), OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.
Direktiva 2004/38/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Un`e in njihovih družinskih Ïlanov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav Ïlanic, ki spreminja Uredbo (EGS) št. 1612/68 in razveljavlja Direktive 64/221/EGS, 68/360/EGS, 72/194/EGS, 73/148/EGS, 75/34/EGS, 75/35/EGS, 90/364/EGS, 90/365/EGS in 93/96/EGS (Besedilo velja za EGP), UL 2004 L 158, str. 77.
DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY
ODLOČBE PO OPRAVLJENIH PREISKAVAH storila, da bi pritožniku pomagala v njegovem težkem položaju, namesto da je dajala vtis, da je po njenem mnenju pritožnik sam kriv za svoje težave.
On the basis of the further information provided by the Commission, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission appeared to have taken appropriate action to assist the complainant.
Komis` a se je nato opraviÏila, ker se iz njenega prvega mnenja ni dalo v celoti razbrati njenih dejanj, s katerimi je pomagala pritožniku.
The Commission subsequently apologised for the fact that its first opinion gave an incomplete impression of the actions taken to assist the complainant and it promised to take note of the remark for the future.
Obljubila je, da bo pripombo v prihodnje upoštevala.
USE OF EU FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
UPORABA FINANJNE POMOJI
Summary of decision on complaint 274/2004/JMA against the European Commission
Povzetek odloÏbe o pritožbi 274/2004/JMA zoper Evropsko komis` o
The complaint concerned the Commission’s failure to inform the complainant about its handling of a complaint concerning the decision of the regional authorities of Madrid to reduce the level of a grant awarded to the complainant for the organisation of training courses for employees.
Pritožba je bila podana, ker Komis` a pritožnika ni obvestila o obravnavi njegove pritožbe proti odloÏitvi madridskih oblasti, da znižajo podporo, namenjeno pritožniku za organizac` o teÏajev usposabljanja za zaposlene.
The grant was financed through the European Social Fund.
Šlo je za podporo Evropskega socialnega sklada.
The reduction of part of the funding was based on the fact that some participants in the training courses were not Spanish nationals.
OdloÏitev o znižanju sredstev je bila utemeljena z dejstvom, da nekateri udeleženci teÏaja niso bili španski državljani. Pritožnik je menil, da je to diskriminac`a.
The complainant alleged that, several months a W er having complained to the Commission, it had failed to provide him with any information on the handling of his case.
Navedel je tudi, da mu Komis` a veÏ mesecev po pritožbi ni posredovala podatkov o obravnavi primera.
The Commission regremed that its first assessment of the case had not been forwarded to the complainant.
Komis` a je izrazila obžalovanje, da svoje prve ocene primera ni posredovala pritožniku.
In a second and more detailed assessment, the Commission had accepted that part of the reduction in the amount of the grant was based on the fact that two students were not Spanish nationals.
V drugi, podrobnejši oceni je potrdila, da je bilo znižanje podpore delno osnovano na dejstvu, da dva udeleženca teÏaja nista bila španska državljana.
The Commission had therefore made a recommendation to the responsible Spanish authorities to repay the relevant sum to the complainant and to exclude any reference to nationality from future programmes.
Zato je pristojnim španskim oblastem priporoÏila, da pritožniku izplaÏajo ustrezno vsoto in iz prihodnjih programov Ïrtajo vsa vprašanja o državljanstvu.
The Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to pursue any further inquiries, given that the Commission had agreed to provide the information requested by the complainant and had acknowledged and apologised for its failure to contact the complainant earlier.
Varuh Ïlovekovih pravic je ocenil, da preiskave ni treba nadaljevati, saj je Komis` a privolila, da bo posredovala podatke, ki jih je zahteval pritožnik, ter priznala svojo napako in se zanjo upraviÏila.
However, since the Commission had not mentioned any criteria seming out the procedure which its services ought to follow to deal with complaints concerning the use of EU financial assistance, the Ombudsman considered it useful to make a further remark.
Vendar je varuh Ïlovekovih pravic ocenil, da bi bilo koristno podati dodatno pripombo, glede na to, da Komis` a ni navedla meril za postopke, ki naj jim službe Komis` e sled`o pri obravnavi pritožb o uporabi fi na n Ï ne pomoÏi EU.