natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
He also informed the Portuguese Ombudsman about the complaint.
O pritožbi je obvestil tudi portugalskega varuha človekovih pravic.
On the basis of the information forwarded by the European Ombudsman, the Portuguese Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry into the actions of the Portuguese authorities and informed the Portuguese Prosecutor-General accordingly.
Portugalski varuh se je na podlagi informacij, ki mu jih je poslal evropski varuh, odločil, da bo sprožil preiskavo o ukrepih portugalskih organov, o čemer je ustrezno obvestil portugalskega generalnega tožilca.
The European Ombudsman and the Portuguese Ombudsman intend to keep each other informed about the progress of their inquiries.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic in portugalski varuh človekovih pravic bosta drug drugega obveščala o napredku svojih preiskav.
Examples of cases transferred to the European Commission
Izbrani primeri, predani Evropski komisiji
A Bulgarian citizen complained to the European Ombudsman that Article 30 of Directive 2002/22/EC, which gives consumers the right to keep their existing mobile telephone number if they change service provider, had not been implemented in Bulgaria and that the Commission had failed to act on the matter.
Bolgarski državljan se je evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic pritožil, da se v Bolgariji ne izvaja člen 30 Direktive 2002/22/ES, v skladu s katerim imajo uporabniki pravico obdržati svojo številko mobilnega telefona, če zamenjajo ponudnika storitev, in da Komisija ni ukrepala v zvezi s tem.
He claimed that the Commission should open infringement proceedings.
Trdil je, da bi morala Komisija sprožiti postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev.
The complainant had been in touch with several Commission services, which had informed him of the possibility to lodge an infringement complaint under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.
Pritožnik je navezal stike z več službami Komisije, te pa so ga obvestile o možnosti vložitve pritožbe zaradi kršitve v skladu s členom 226 Pogodbe ES.
However, the complainant appeared not to have done so.
Vendar pa se zdi, da pritožnik tega ni storil.
The Ombudsman therefore considered the complaint to be inadmissible against the Commission, since the appropriate prior administrative approaches had not been made.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato menil, da je pritožba proti Komisiji nedopustna, ker niso bila uporabljena ustrezna predhodna upravna sredstva.
The Ombudsman noted, however, that the Commission’s complaint form concerning Member States’ failure to comply with Community law was not yet available in the Bulgarian language.
Vendar pa je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da obrazec Komisije za pritožbe zaradi držav članic, ki ne izpolnjujejo zakonodaje Skupnosti, v bolgarskem jeziku še ni na voljo.
As regards the underlying issue, the Ombudsman therefore transferred the complaint to the Commission to be dealt with as an infringement complaint against Bulgaria.
Varuh je zato v zvezi z osnovnim vprašanjem pritožbo predal Komisiji, da bi jo obravnavala kot pritožbo zaradi kršitve proti Bolgariji.
He also asked the Commission to inform him when the Bulgarian version of the complaint form would be available.
Komisijo je tudi zaprosil, naj ga obvesti, ko bo na voljo različica obrazca za pritožbe v bolgarskem jeziku.
It stated that it would examine this legislation and consider any appropriate measures in order to ensure the correct implementation of the EU regulatory framework.
Navedla je, da bo preučila to zakonodajo in razmislila o ustreznih ukrepih, da bi zagotovila pravilno izvajanje ureditvenega okvira EU.
It also provided the link to the Bulgarian version of the complaint form which had in the meantime been made available.
Zagotovila je tudi povezavo do različice obrazca za pritožbe v bolgarskem jeziku, ki je medtem postal dostopen.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE
Since the Commission is the Institution which has the necessary legal powers at the EU level to take action on such matters, the Ombudsman transferred the cases to the Commission.
Ker je Komisija institucija, ki ima potrebna zakonska pooblastila na ravni EU za ukrepanje v zvezi s takimi zadevami, je varuh človekovih pravic te primere predal Komisiji.
The Commission subsequently informed the Ombudsman that it had asked the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) for advice on whether Community action would be necessary.
Komisija je varuha pozneje obvestila, da je Evropsko agencijo za zdravila (EMEA) zaprosila za nasvet v zvezi s tem, ali bi bili potrebni ukrepi Skupnosti.
In July 2007, EMEA announced that it had recommended to the Commission that all drugs containing the substance“veralipride”, including Agreal, be withdrawn from the European market.
Agencija EMEA je julija 2007 sporočila, da je Komisiji priporočila, naj se z evropskega trga umaknejo vsa zdravila, ki vsebujejo snov „veraliprid“, vključno z zdravilom Agreal.
The Commission subsequently adopted a decision requiring Member States to revoke marketing authorisations for medicinal products containing“velalipride”, as the benefit-risk balance was considered negative.
Komisija je pozneje sprejela sklep, s katerim se od držav članic zahteva, naj prekličejo dovoljenja za promet z zdravili, ki vsebujejo „veraliprid“, ker naj bi bilo razmerje med koristmi in tveganjem negativno.
Example of a case transferred to SOLVIT
Izbrani primer, predan mreži SOLVIT
The complainant was a Bulgarian citizen who had obtained his diploma as a medical doctor in Bulgaria.
Pritožnik je bil bolgarski državljan, ki je v Bolgariji pridobil diplomo doktorja medicine.
Following Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, he wished to practise medicine in France and obtained a conformity certificate for his diploma from the Bulgarian Ministry of Health.
Po pristopu Bolgarije k EU je želel opravljati zdravniški poklic v Franciji, zato mu je bolgarsko ministrstvo za zdravje izdalo potrdilo o skladnosti za njegovo diplomo.
The French National Council of Physicians rejected the conformity certi cate, however, because it did not mention Directive 93/16.
Vendar pa je francoski nacionalni zdravniški svet zavrnil potrdilo o skladnosti, ker v njem ni bila navedena Direktiva 93/16.
The Bulgarian authorities insisted that the certificate was valid without the reference in question.
Bolgarski organi so trdili, da je potrdilo veljavno brez zadevnega sklicevanja.
The Ombudsman transferred the complaint to the Bulgarian SOLVIT Centre, which informed the Ombudsman shortly thereafter that the case had been successfully resolved and that the complainant had been provided with a conformity certificate which allows him to practise his profession in France.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pritožbo predal bolgarskemu centru SOLVIT, ki je varuha nato kmalu obvestil, da je bil primer uspešno rešen in da je pritožnik prejel potrdilo o skladnosti, ki mu omogoča opravljanje poklica v Franciji.
Advice was given in 1 862 cases.
Nasveti so bili dani v 1 862 primerih.
In 816 of these, complainants were advised to turn to a national or regional ombudsman and in 109 cases to petition the European Parliament.
Od tega so v 816 primerih pritožniki dobili nasvet, naj se obrnejo na nacionalnega ali regionalnega varuha, v 109 primerih pa, naj predložijo peticijo Evropskemu parlamentu.
In 308 cases, the recommendation was to contact the European Commission.
V 308 primerih so dobili nasvet, naj stopijo v stik z Evropsko komisijo.
This figure includes some cases in which a complaint against the Commission was declared inadmissible because appropriate administrative approaches to the institution had not been made before the complaint was lodged.
V to število so vključeni nekateri primeri, v katerih je bila pritožba proti Komisiji razglašena za nedopustno, ker pred njeno vložitvijo niso bila uporabljena ustrezna upravna sredstva pri tej institucij i.
In 69 cases, the suggestion was to contact SOLVIT, while 766 complainants were advised to contact other bodies, mostly specialised ombudsmen or complaint-handling bodies in a Member State.
V 69 primerih so pritožniki dobili nasvet, naj stopijo v stik z mrežo SOLVIT, 766 pritožnikov pa je dobilo nasvet, naj stopijo v stik z drugimi organi, predvsem specializiranimi varuhi človekovih pravic ali organi za obravnavanje pritožb v državah članicah.
THE OMBUDSMAN’SPROCEDURES
POSTOPKI VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
All complaints sent to the Ombudsman are registered and acknowledged, normally within one week of receipt.
Vse pritožbe, ki jih prejme varuh človekovih pravic, se vpišejo v register in po navadi potrdijo v enem tednu po prejemu.
The acknowledgement informs the complainant of the procedure and includes a reference number, as well as the name and telephone number of the person who is dealing with the complaint.
V potrdilnem pismu je pritožnik obveščen o postopku, navedeni pa so tudi referenčna številka ter ime in telefonska številka osebe, ki obravnava pritožbo.
The complaint is analysed to determine whether an inquiry should be opened and the complainant is informed of the result of the analysis, normally within one month.
Pritožba se preuči, da se ugotovi, ali je treba sprožiti preiskavo, pritožnik pa je po navadi v enem mesecu obveščen o rezultatu preučitve.
If no inquiry is opened, the complainant is informed of the reason.
Če preiskava ni sprožena, je pritožnik obveščen o razlogih.
Whenever possible, the complaint is transferred, or the complainant is given appropriate advice about a competent body to which he or she could turn.
Kadar je to mogoče, se pritožba preda naprej ali pa pritožnik prejme ustrezen nasvet, na kateri pristojni organ naj se obrne.
Starting an inquiry
LETNO POROČILO 2007
The European Parliament and Commission agreed in 2004 to accept a shorter time limit of two months for complaints against refusal of access to documents.
Komisija sta se leta 2004 dogovorila, da bosta sprejela krajši rok za pritožbe zoper zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov, in sicer dva meseca.
The principle of fair procedure requires that the Ombudsman’s decision on a complaint must not take into account information contained in documents provided either by the complainant, or by the Community institution or body, unless the other party has had the opportunity to see the documents and give its point of view.
Načelo poštenega postopka zahteva, da varuh človekovih pravic pri odločanju v zvezi s pritožbo ne sme upoštevati podatkov iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložil pritožnik ali institucij a ali organ Skupnosti, če druga stranka teh dokumentov ni videla in ni imela možnosti, da bi predložila mnenje.
The Ombudsman therefore sends the opinion of the Community institution or body to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations.
Zato varuh človekovih pravic pošlje mnenje institucij e ali organa Skupnosti pritožniku in ga povabi, naj predloži pripombe.
The same procedure is followed if further inquiries into the complaint need to be conducted.
Postopek je enak tudi, kadar je treba opraviti dodatne preiskave v zvezi s pritožbo.
Neither the Treaty nor the Statute provides for appeal or other remedies against the Ombudsman’s decisions concerning the handling or outcome of a complaint.
Pogodba in statut ne predvidevata pritožbe ali drugih sredstev zoper odločitev varuha človekovih pravic v zvezi z obravnavanjem ali rezultatu pritožbe.
However, like all other Community institutions and bodies, the Ombudsman is subject to actions for damages based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty.
Je pa zoper varuha človekovih pravic, kot zoper vse druge institucij e in organe Skupnosti, mogoče sprožiti odškodninsko tožbo na podlagi člena 288 Pogodbe ES.
It is possible, in principle, to bring such an action in the Community courts based on the Ombudsman’s alleged mishandling of a complaint.
Načeloma je mogoče tako tožbo vložiti na sodiščih Skupnosti na podlagi domneve, da je varuh človekovih pravic pritožbo neustrezno obravnaval.
Inspection of the files and hearing of witnesses
Pregled spisov in zaslišanje prič
Article 3(2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman requires the Community institutions and bodies to supply the Ombudsman with any information that he requests of them and give him access to the fi files concerned.
V členu 3(2) statuta varuha človekovih pravic je določeno, da morajo institucij e in organi Skupnosti varuhu predložiti vse informacije, ki jih zahteva, in mu omogočiti dostop do zadevnih spisov.
The Ombudsman’s power to inspect files allows him to verify the completeness and accuracy of the information supplied by the Community institution or body concerned.
Pooblastilo za pregled spisov varuhu človekovih pravic omogoča, da preveri popolnost in točnost podatkov, ki mu jih predloži zadevna institucij a ali organ Skupnosti.
It is therefore an important guarantee to the complainant and to the public that the Ombudsman can conduct a thorough and complete investigation.
Pritožniku in javnosti tako zagotavlja, da lahko varuh človekovih pravic opravi temeljito in popolno preiskavo.
Article 3(2) of the Statute also requires o cials and other servants of the Community institutions and bodies to testify at the request of the Ombudsman.
V členu 3(2) statuta varuha človekovih pravic je določeno tudi, da morajo uradniki in drugi uslužbenci institucij in organov Skupnosti pričati na zahtevo varuha človekovih pravic.
During 2007, the Ombudsman’s power to inspect the institution’s files was used in 18 cases.
V letu 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic uporabil pooblastilo za pregled spisov v 18 primerih.
The power to hear witnesses was used in one case.
Pooblastilo za zaslišanje prič je uporabil v enem primeru.
Complaints to the Ombudsman are dealt with in a public way unless the complainant requests confidentiality. dentiality.
Varuh človekovih pravic obravnava pritožbe javno, razen če pritožnik zahteva zaupnost.
Article 13 of the Implementing Provisions provides for the complainant to have access to the Ombudsman’s fi le on his or her complaint.
S členom 13 izvedbenih določb je pritožniku zagotovljena pravica do vpogleda v spis varuha človekovih pravic o njegovi pritožbi.
Article 14 provides for public access to documents held by the Ombudsman, subject to the same conditions and limits as those laid down by Regulation 1049/20018.
S členom 14 je zagotovljen dostop javnosti do varuhovih dokumentov v skladu s pogoji in omejitvami, enakimi tistim iz Uredbe št. 1049/20018.
However, where the Ombudsman inspects the fi le of the institution or body concerned or takes evidence from a witness, neither the complainant nor the public may have access to any
Pritožniki in javnost pa nimajo dostopa do zaupnih dokumentov ali zaupnih podatkov, ki jih varuh človekovih pravic pridobi pri pregledu spisov zadevne institucij e ali organa oziroma zaslišanju prič (člena 13.3 in 14.2).
Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
THE OUTCOMES OFINQUIRIES
REZULTATI PREISKAV
During an inquiry, the complainant is informed of each new step taken.
Med preiskavo je pritožnik obveščen o vsakem novem koraku.
When the Ombudsman decides to close the inquiry, he informs the complainant of the results of the inquiry and of his conclusions.
Ko se varuh človekovih pravic odloči, da bo preiskavo zaključil, pritožnika obvesti o rezultatih preiskave in svojih ugotovitvah.
The Ombudsman’s decisions are not legally binding and do not create legally enforceable rights or obligations for the complainant, or for the institution or body concerned.
Odločitve varuha niso pravno zavezujoče in ne ustvarjajo pravno izvršljivih pravic ali obveznosti za pritožnika oziroma zadevno institucij o ali organ.
In 2007, the Ombudsman closed 348 inquiries, of which 341 were linked to complaints and seven were own-initiatives.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic zaključil 348 preiskav, od teh 341 na podlagi pritožb, sedem pa na lastno pobudo.
If an inquiry deals with more than one allegation or claim, these may give rise to several findings by the Ombudsman.
Če se v preiskavi obravnava več kot ena obtožba ali zahtevek, lahko varuh človekovih pravic poda več različnih ugotovitev.
In 2007, 95 cases, including three owninitiative inquiries, were closed with a finding of no maladministration.
Leta 2007 je bilo 95 primerov, vključno s tremi preiskavami na lastno pobudo, zaključenih z ugotovitvijo, da nepravilnosti ni bilo.
This is not necessarily a negative outcome for the complainant, who at least benefits from receiving a full explanation from the institution or body concerned of what it has done.
To ni nujno negativen rezultat za pritožnika, ki od zadevne institucij e ali organa vsaj prejme temeljito obrazložitev dejanja.
Furthermore, even if the Ombudsman does not find maladministration, he may identify an opportunity for the institution or body to improve the quality of its administration in the future.
Poleg tega lahko varuh človekovih pravic, tudi če ne odkrije nepravilnosti, poišče način, kako v prihodnje izboljšati upravljanje institucij ali organov.
Cases se4 led by the institution and friendly solutions
Primeri, ki jih je rešila institucija, in sporazumne rešitve
During 2007, 129 cases, including an owninitiative inquiry, were se4 led by the institution or body itself following a complaint to the Ombudsman.
Leta 2007 so na podlagi pritožbe varuhu človekovih pravic institucij e ali organi sami rešili 129 primerov, vključno z eno preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
Of this number, 93 were cases in which the Ombudsman’s intervention succeeded in obtaining a rapid reply to unanswered correspondence (see section 2.9 of the Annual Report 1998 for details of the procedure).
Od teh je varuhu človekovih pravic v 93 primerih s posredovanjem uspelo pridobiti hiter odgovor na neodgovorjena pisma (podrobnosti o tem postopku so v razdelku 2.9 Letnega poročila za leto 1998).
The Ombudsman’s objective in such cases is to solve the problem rapidly, as an alternative to opening a normal inquiry into possible maladministration.
Varuhov cilj v takih primerih je hitra rešitev težave, da ni treba sprožiti običajne preiskave glede morebitne nepravilnosti.
In 2007, the procedure was also successfully used in three cases (723/2007/MHZ, 1624/2007/JMA, 2201/2007/JMA) to help the Commission se4 le the ma4 er by supplementing its previous answer.
Leta 2007 je bil ta postopek uspešno uporabljen tudi v treh primerih (723/2007/MHZ, 1624/2007/JMA, 2201/2007/JMA), v katerih je Komisiji pomagal zadevo rešiti z dopolnitvijo njenega prejšnjega odgovora. 9
Explanation of the scope of a Directive
Obrazložitev področja uporabe direktive
The complainant, a Spanish citizen who lives in Spain, asked the Commission to take action against the United Kingdom and Estonian authorities because they required his wife, who is of Byelorussian nationality, to obtain a visa before visiting those countries.
Pritožnik, španski državljan, ki živi v Španiji, je Komisijo zaprosil, naj ukrepa proti organom Združenega kraljestva in Estonije, ker so od njegove žene, ki ima belorusko državljanstvo, zahtevali pridobitev vizuma pred obiskom teh dveh držav.
According to the complainant, the visa requirements violate Directive 2004/38/EC9
Po trditvah pritožnika vizumska obveznost krši Direktivo 2004/38/ES9
(“the Directive”).
(v nadaljevanju „direktiva“).
In its second reply, the Commission underlined that Article 5(2) of the Directive does not apply to the complainant’s wife since her residence permit is not the “residence card” foreseen in Article 10 of the Directive, but was granted under, and is governed exclusively by, Spanish law.
Komisija mu je v odgovoru obrazložila, da njegova žena ni upravičena do ugodnosti iz določb člena 5(2) direktive, v skladu s katerim so državljani tretjih držav, ki imajo „dovoljenje za prebivanje“, izvzeti iz kakršne koli zahteve držav članic EU za vizum.
The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission’s replies were legally correct, but could have been drafted in a more easily understandable way. The Commission’s services agreed to send an additional reply to the complainant.
Pritožnik je ponovno pisal Komisiji in ugovarjal, da se zdi, da se direktiva uporablja za vse državljane ES in njihove družine, ter da ima njegova žena dokument za prebivanje.
In view of the final point of the Commission’s reply, the Ombudsman also informed the European Parliament of the matter.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdil, da je mnenje Komisije v nasprotju z direktivo.
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; OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic; UL 2004 L 158, str. 77.
If an inquiry leads to a finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman tries to achieve a friendly solution whenever possible.
Kadar varuh človekovih pravic pri preiskavi ugotovi nepravilnost, poskuša vedno doseči sporazumno rešitev, če je to mogoče.
At the end of 2007, 31 proposals for friendly solutions were still under consideration.
Ob koncu leta 2007 se je 31 predlogov za sporazumno rešitev še vedno preučevalo.
For examples of friendly solutions achieved by the Ombudsman, please refer to section 3.3 of this Report.
Primeri sporazumnih rešitev, ki jih je dosegel varuh človekovih pravic, so navedeni v razdelku 3.3 tega poročila.
Critical remarks and dra recommendations
Kritične ocene in osnutki priporočil
If a friendly solution is not possible or if the search for such a solution is unsuccessful, the Ombudsman either closes the case with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned or makes a dra recommendation.
Če sporazumna rešitev ni mogoča ali če je iskanje take rešitve neuspešno, lahko varuh človekovih pravic zaključi primer s kritično oceno za zadevno institucij o ali organ ali pa sestavi osnutek priporočila.
A critical remark is normally made if (i) it is no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration, (ii) the maladministration appears to have no general implications, and (iii) no followup action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
Kritično oceno običajno sestavi, če (i) je prepozno, da bi institucij a nepravilnost odpravila, (ii) se zdi, da nepravilnost nima splošnih posledic, ali (iii) se zdi, da nadaljnji ukrepi varuha človekovih pravic niso potrebni. Varuh človekovih pravic sestavi kritično oceno tudi, če meni, da osnutek
A critical remark is also made if the Ombudsman considers that a drarecommendation would serve no useful purpose or that it does not seem appropriate to submit a special report to Parliament in a case where the institution or body concerned fails to accept a dra recommendation.
PRITOŽBE IN PREISKAVE priporočila ne bi bil uporaben za ta namen, ali če se mu ne zdi primerno, da bi Parlamentu predložil posebno poročilo, kadar zadevna institucij a ali organ ne sprejme osnutka priporočila.
A critical remark confirms to the complainant that his or her complaint is justified and indicates to the institution or body concerned what it has done wrong, so as to help it avoid maladministration in the future.
Kritična ocena pritožniku potrdi, da je bila pritožba upravičena, institucij am ali organom pa pokaže, kje so ravnali napačno, da se lahko v prihodnje podobnim nepravilnostim izognejo.
In 2007, the Ombudsman closed 55 inquiries with critical remarks.
Leta 2007 je varuh človekovih pravic 55 preiskav zaključil s kritičnimi pripombami.
A full list of these cases is provided in Annex D.
V Prilogi D je celoten seznam teh primerov.