natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman therefore made proposals for friendly solutions requesting the EUMC to provide adequate information on the compared scores and adequate explanations regarding the transparency of the first tender procedure or, alternatively, reasonable compensation.
Zato je pritožnik septembra 2004 pri varuhu človekovih pravic vložil pritožbo, v kateri je trdil, da (i) so se v imenovanje vodje informacijskega urada Parlamenta vmešale politične stranke in da je takšno vmešavanje v nasprotju s kadrovskimi predpisi, ter da (ii) mu Parlament ni odgovoril na njegovo pritožbo, poslano s priporočenim pismom dne 19. februarja 2003.
The EUMC accepted the Ombudsman’s proposals for friendly solutions and the complainant expressed his gratitude to the Ombudsman for his work and for providing a reliable safeguard for transparency in the EU.
V svojem mnenju je Parlament navedel, da je bila ustanovljena neodvisna izbirna komisija in da so bila merila za izbor, ki jih je sprejela komisija in jih enako uporabila za vse kandidate, utemeljena v profilu, ki je bil podrobno opisan v razpisu prostega delovnega mesta.
CASES CLOSED WITH A CRITICAL REMARK BY THE OMBUDSMAN
V svojih pripombah na mnenje Parlamenta je pritožnik navedel, da so se v izbirni postopek vmešali nekateri poslanci Evropskega parlamenta iz zadevne države članice, za katere se zdi, da so poznali imena kandidatov in da so videli njihove prijave in življenjepise.
Inadequate reasoning and failure to provide information concerning the mark received in an oral test
Varuh človekovih pravic je opravil tri nize dodatnih poizvedovanj, v katerih je med drugim zaprosil Parlament, da pojasni, katere ukrepe je sprejel za zagotovitev nepristranskosti izbirnega postopka ter anonimnosti kandidatov in njihovih vlog pri osebah, ki niso bili člani izbirne komisije.
Summary of decision on complaint 1782/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Parliament
Parlament je tudi zaprosil za pripombe o pritožnikovi izjavi, da so nekateri neimenovani poslanci Evropskega parlamenta skušali stopiti v neposredni stik z generalnim sekretarjem Parlamenta, da bi vplival na izbirni postopek.
The complainant participated in an Open Competition organised by the European Parliament but was informed by Parliament that he had obtained only 19/40 in the oral test and that, therefore, his name could not be included on the reserve list.
V svojem odgovoru je Parlament navedel, da je izbirna komisija upoštevala tajnost postopkov in da ni dokazov, da so njeni člani posredovali informacij e o kandidatih.
By le4 er of 11 March 2004, the complainant contested this result.
Predsednik Parlamenta je tudi potrdil, da lahko jamči, da se generalni sekretar ni vmešaval v delo izbirne komisije, oziroma da ni bilo poskusov vplivati na generalnega sekretarja.
He stated that he considered the result incomprehensibly low and asked for a review of his oral test and for his name to be put on the reserve list.
V svoji odločbi je varuh človekovih pravic najprej opozoril, da obtožbe zoper posamezne poslance Evropskega parlamenta presegajo njegova pooblastila, ker se ne nanašajo na dejanje institucij e ali organa Skupnosti.
He also asked to be provided with a breakdown of the marks and with the weighting of the marks for each subject of the oral test.
Varuh človekovih pravic je razumel pritožnikovo prvo obtožbo kot namigovanje, da so uslužbenci Parlamenta, ki so sodelovali v izbirnem postopku, dovolili, da so nanje vplivali poslanci Evropskega parlamenta.
According to the complainant, Parliament sent him a vague and inadequately reasoned reply on 25 March 2004, which merely confirmed his marks.
V zvezi s tem je varuh človekovih pravic pripomnil, da pritožnik ni predložil oprijemljivih dokazov v podporo tej domnevi in da nadaljnja poizvedovanja niso obrodila konkretnih dokazov, ki bi lahko potrdili pritožnikova sumničenja.
In June 2004, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman alleging that Parliament’s competitions service had sent a vague and inadequately reasoned reply to his le4 er of 11 March
Varuh človekovih pravic se je tudi seznanil z jasnimi izjavami Parlamenta, da ni bilo nobenega vmešavanja v izbirni postopek.
In its opinion, Parliament stated that, in its le4 er of 25 March 2004, it had reconfirmed the marks of the complainant.
Pritožnik, ki je gospodarska družba, je bil vključen v vrsto projektov, ki jih financira Komisija.
Parliament observed that the Selection Board had respected the notice of competition and that no irregularity had been found.
Eden od njegovih podizvajalcev je v okviru gospodarskega spora dosegel, da je sodišče v Luxembourgu izdalo odredbo proti pritožniku o prepovedi razpolaganja s premoženjem.
Parliament also pointed out that the Open Competition in question consisted of only one oral test which was meant to assess the performance of each candidate in relation to that of the other candidates.
Ko je bila Komisija obveščena o tej odredbi, je blokirala vsa izplačila pritožniku in ga uvrstila na seznam v svojem tako imenovanem „sistemu zgodnjega opozarjanja“ (Early Warning System, EWS).
It went on to say that, since there was only one overall mark, it could not communicate to the complainant the “correct” answers to the questions or provide him with a detailed breakdown of his mark.
Sistem EWS opozarja Komisijo na primere, kjer je upravičenec ali potencialni upravičenec dejansko ali domnevno storil (resne) administrativne napake ali celo zagrešil goljufijo.
The Ombudsman conducted further inquiries with regard to several aspects of the complainant’s claims and also carried out an inspection of Parliament’s fi le concerning the competition and the assessment of the complainant’s oral test.
Ko je bila Komisija obveščena, da je odredba o prepovedi razpolaganja s premoženjem omejena na 50 000 EUR, se je odločila zadržati to vsoto in jo odšteti od zneskov, ki jih mora izplačati pritožniku.
During the inspection, it appeared that, apart from one general sentence in the final report of the Selection Board, there was no other document available concerning the evaluation of the candidates’ oral tests.
Vendar je pritožnik ostal na seznamu EWS, dokler ni bil čez skoraj eno leto odpravljena odredba o prepovedi razpolaganja s premoženjem.
In a critical remark, the Ombudsman pointed out that, in a case where there was only one oral test with merely a single overall mark, it is particularly important for Parliament adequately to address requests for reconsideration of that mark.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdil, da je bila odločitev Komisije, da (i) zadrži vsoto 50 000 EUR in (ii) uvrsti pritožnika na seznam EWS nepoštena, nezakonita, neutemeljena in da krši evropski Kodeks dobrega upravnega ravnanja. Trdil je tudi, da bi morala Komisija vsem službam Komisije poslati pojasnjevalni dopis in mu tako povrniti ugled.
The Ombudsman however made a further remark in which he recommended that, in cases like the present one where a competition consists of only one oral test, Parliament could encourage Selection Boards to document their appraisals in a more detailed way.
Glede na pritožnikove navedbe je imel zaradi uvrstitve na seznam EWS resne težave pri dodeljevanju novih naročil s strani Komisije, utrpel je večje zamude pri plačilih in nepopravljivo škodo za ugled.
He went on to argue that such a course of action would not create an unbearable burden of extra work in cases where the number of candidates taking part in the oral test is limited.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da je bilo blokiranje 50 000 EUR popolnoma upravičeno in da je bila uvrstitev na seznam EWS v skladu z njenim poslovnikom.
Alleged political interference in the appointment of the Head of Parliament’s Information O ce in a Member State
Varuh človekovih pravic je opravil dodatna poizvedovanja, poleg tega je pregledal ustrezno dokumentacijo.
Summary of decision on complaint 2825/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Parliament
Ugotovil je, da pri odločitvi Komisije, da zadrži pritožnikovih 50 000 EUR, ni bilo nepravilnosti, saj je Komisija očitno ravnala v skladu z zakonodajo.
The complainant applied in November 2002 for the post of Head of Parliament’s Information O ce in a Member State.
Varuh človekovih pravic je opozoril, da Komisija ni umaknila pritožnika s seznama EWS tudi po tem, ko je bila obveščena, da je bila odredba o prepovedi razpolaganja s premoženjem omejena na 50 000 EUR, in ko je že blokirala navedeni znesek.
The President of the Selection Board informed him in February 2003 that, a er a comparative examination of the merits of the candidates, he was not among the six best candidates who were invited for an interview.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da se negativne posledice uvrstitve na seznam, ki jih je navajal pritožnik, zdijo prepričljive.
By registered le4 er of 19 February 2003, the complainant complained against the rejection of his application and asked to be reconsidered for the post. He received no reply to his le4 er.
Glede na vse navedeno je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da je ohranitev pritožnika na seznamu EWS nepoštena in je primer nepravilnosti. Varuh človekovih pravic je zato menil, da ni treba preučevati drugih navedb.
In its opinion, Parliament stated that an independent Selection Board had been constituted and that the selection criteria adopted by the Board and applied equally to all candidates were based on the detailed profile described in the vacancy notice.
Varuh se je obrnil na pritožnika, da bi se pozanimal o možnosti za sporazumno rešitev.
In his observations on Parliament’s opinion, the complainant stated that certain MEPs from the Member State concerned had interfered in the selection procedure and appeared to know the identity of the candidates and had seen their applications and CVs.
Vendar se je pritožnik raje odločil za končno odločbo varuha človekovih pravic. Varuh človekovih pravic je zato primer zaključil s kritično pripombo.
The Ombudsman also asked Parliament to comment on the complainant’s statement that certain unnamed MEPs had sought direct contact with Parliament’s Secretary-General in order to influence the selection procedure.
Kandidat za delovno mesto vodje predstavništva na Malti je vložil pritožbo zoper Komisijo v zvezi z razkritjem imen kandidatov za ta položaj in njihovo objavo v treh člankih lokalnih časnikov.
In its replies, Parliament stated that the Selection Board had respected the secrecy of its proceedings and that there was no proof that the Board members had communicated information concerning candidates.
Trije časopisni članki so navedli imena več kandidatov za položaj, devetih kandidatov, izbranih za razgovor, in treh kandidatk, ki so prišle v ožji izbor za položaj.
Parliament’s President also confirmed that he could guarantee that there had been no interference by the Secretary-General in the work of the Selection Board or a4 empts to influence the Secretary-General.
Pritožnik je menil, da je bilo trikratno razkritje imen kandidatov, ki so se pojavila v tisku, kršitev zaupanja in Uredbe 45/2001 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov14.
In his decision, the Ombudsman firstly pointed out that allegations against individual MEPs are outside his mandate, because they do not concern an act of a Community institution or body.
Komisija je v mnenju o pritožbi varuha človekovih pravic obvestila, da je evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov sprožil preiskavo o prvem nepooblaščenem razkritju.
The Ombudsman understood the complainant’s first allegation as suggesting that Parliament o cials involved in the selection procedure allowed themselves to be influenced by MEPs.
Na zahtevo varuha človekovih pravic ga je evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov obvestil o izidu svoje preiskave.
In this regard, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant had submi4 ed no tangible evidence supporting that allegation and that the further inquiries conducted did not produce any concrete evidence that could confirm the complainant’s suspicions.
Varuh človekovih pravic se je v odločbi skliceval na Memorandum o soglasju med Evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic in Evropskim nadzornikom varstva podatkov z dne 30. novembra 2006, ki določa, da „[n]oben od organov ne bo pričel preiskave, če isto pritožbo obravnava ali jo je obravnaval drugi organ, razen če pritožnik predloži nove ključne dokaze, potem ko je eden od obeh organov že opravil preiskavo“.
The Ombudsman also took note of Parliament’s clear statements that there had been no interference in the selection procedure.
Varuh človekovih pravic je tako menil, da ne bi bilo ustrezno, če bi nadaljeval preiskavo v zvezi s prvim razkritjem informacij .
With regard to the complainant’s particular request to have testimony taken from an assistant of an MEP, the Ombudsman pointed out that his Statute does not allow him to take testimony from MEPs or their assistants and that, in any event, given Parliament’s clear statements which ought to be given credence, taking testimony on a voluntary basis from the persons concerned would not be appropriate.
Je pa varuh človekovih pravic zaprosil Komisijo, naj mu posreduje informacij e o izidu svojih notranjih preiskav o informacijah, ki sta jih vsebovala drugi in tretji članek, ter sezname svojega osebja in/ali tretjih strani, ki so imeli po njenem pooblastilu dostop do osebnih podatkov, navedenih v vsakem od treh časopisnih člankov.
On the basis of these considerations, the Ombudsman concluded that it had not been established that the selection procedure for the post in question had been open to or influenced by “outside” interference.
Komisija je v odgovoru navedla, da niso odkrili nobenih objektivnih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi lahko ugotovili, kdo je nepooblaščeno razkril informacije.
The Ombudsman made however a critical remark with regard to the second allegation of failure to reply to the complainant’s registered le4 er of 19 February 2003.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v svoji odločitvi ugotovil, da se je z ravnanjem Komisije, ko je zagotovila zaupne osebne podatke „velikemu številu prejemnikov“ in „številnemu vključenemu tajniškemu in drugemu osebju“ in nato ni mogla pripraviti seznama oseb, ki so imele dostop do navedenih osebnih podatkov, povečala verjetnost nepooblaščenega razkritja osebnih podatkov nepooblaščenim osebam.
Parliament replied to this le4 er only on 12 October 2005, that is, more than two and a half years later and a year a er the Ombudsman had drawn its a4 ention to the failure to reply.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato podal kritično opombo, da tako ravnanje ni v skladu z dolžnostmi Komisije po Uredbi 45/2001 in da to velja za nepravilnost.
The European Commission
Domneva o neupravičeni tajnosti v podatkovni zbirki SKP
Unfair listing of company in the Early Warning System
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1693/2005/PB zoper Evropsko komisijo o
Summary of decision on complaint 2468/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Commission
Da bi pritožnik ugotovil, kdo so prejemniki kmetijskih subvencij EU, je zaprosil Komisijo za dostop javnosti do letnih računovodskih poročil, ki jih države članice pošiljajo Komisiji v zvezi s skupno kmetijsko politiko na podlagi Uredbe 2390/1999.
When the Commission was informed of this order, it blocked all payments to the complainant and listed it in its so-called Early Warning System (EWS).
Komisija je navedla, da se računovodske informacije, ki so jih predložile države članice, štejejo za informacij e zaupne narave na podlagi Uredbe 2390/1999.
However, the complainant remained on the EWS until the a4 achment order was li ed nearly one year later.
Obenem je navedla, da poročila niso več v
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission’s decision (i) to retain the sum of EUR 50 000 and (ii) to list the complainant in the EWS was unfair, illegal, unfounded and infringed the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Uredba (ES) 45/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2000 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov, UL 2001 L 8, str. 1.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS problems as regards the award of new contracts by the Commission, major delays in payments and irreparable damage to its reputation.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic je v svoji končni odločbi navedel, da Komisija ni predložila utemeljenih razlogov za sklicevanje na določbo Uredbe 2390/1999 o zaupnosti.
In its opinion, the Commission submi4 ed that the blocking of EUR 50 000 was fully justified and that the listing in the EWS was made in accordance with its internal rules.
Komisija se je le na splošno sklicevala na zaščito interesov in ni dala primerne razlage glede uporabe ustrezne izjeme.
The Ombudsman carried out further inquiries and also an inspection of the relevant documents. As regards the Commission’s decision to retain the sum of EUR 50 000 from the complainant, the Ombudsman concluded that there was no maladministration because the Commission appeared to have acted in conformity with the law.
Varuh je v zvezi s tem ugotovil, da nova finančna uredba16in nedavni politični dogovor Sveta o novi uredbi, ki obvezuje države članice, da objavijo nacionalne sezname prejemnikov17, izpodbijata ata utemeljitve Komisije v zvezi z zaupnostjo.
The Ombudsman noted that the Commission had maintained the complainant in the EWS list even a er it had been informed that the a4 achment order had been limited to EUR 50 000 and a er it had blocked the said amount.
Glede neobstoja poročil v obliki „dokumentov“ je Komisija priznala, da je bilo problematično na splošno onemogočiti dostop javnosti do velike količine informacij iz javnih podatkovnih zbirk.
The Ombudsman considered that the negative e� ects of the listing mentioned by the complainant appeared credible.
Zato so rezultate „rutinskih operacij“ šteli za „dokumente“.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant’s continued listing in the EWS was unfair and constituted an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore considered that there was no need to examine the other allegations.
Vendar pa informacij , ki jih je v tem primeru zahteval pritožnik, ni bilo mogoče pridobiti z „rutinsko operacijo“, saj bi bilo treba izvesti zapletene postopke reprogramiranja zbirke podatkov.
The Ombudsman contacted the complainant with a view to exploring the possibility of a friendly solution.
Varuh je sklenil, da splošno stališče Komisije glede dostopa javnosti do informacijv zbirkah podatkov ni bilo zadovoljivo.
However, the complainant preferred to receive the Ombudsman’s final decision.
Vendar pa varuh človekovih pravic ni nadaljeval obravnave te zadeve, temveč je poudaril, da lahko pomeni novo in zahtevno pravno vprašanje splošne narave, s katerim bi se zakonodajna telesa Skupnosti lahko ukvarjala v reformi Uredbe 1049/2001.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a critical remark.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil primer s kritično oceno.
Leaks to the press of the names of candidates for the post of Head of Representation in Malta
Zavrnitev dostopa do notranjega svetovalnega dokumenta
Summary of decision on complaint 452/2005/BU against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1844/2005/GG zoper Evropsko komisijo o
A candidate for the post of Head of Representation in Malta complained against the Commission in connection with the disclosure to, and appearance in, three local newspaper articles, of the names of candidates for the post.
Nemški novinar je zaprosil Komisijo za dostop do dokumenta, ki so ga njene službe sestavile leta 1995 med pripravo sklepa v postopku za ugotavljanje možne kršitve proti Grčiji v zvezi z gradnjo novega letališča v Spati. Komisija je prošnjo zavrnila z utemeljitvijo, da bi razkritje dokumenta resno spodkopalo njen postopek odločanja.
The complainant considered that the three leaks of the candidates’ names to the press constituted a breach of trust and Regulation 45/2001 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data14.
Novinar je menil, da bi razkritje dokumenta komajda lahko imelo takšne posledice, saj je bil dokument star skoraj deset let. Trdil je tudi, da obstaja precejšnje zanimanje javnosti glede zagotavljanja sredstev EU za zadevni projekt in da so bile morebitne nepravilnosti v zvezi s projektom že predmet člankov v pomembnih časopisih.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) had opened investigations into the first leak.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju pojasnila, da dokument vsebuje ocene in mnenja njenih služb ter izraža njihove medsebojne razprave.
Following the Ombudsman’s request, the EDPS informed the Ombudsman of the outcome of his investigations.
Sklicevala se je na smernice, po katerih se dokumenti, ki se nanašajo na postopke v zvezi s kršitvami, običajno objavijo šele, ko je primer zaključen.
In his decision, the Ombudsman referred to the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor of 30 November 2006 which stipulates that “[n]either authority envisages opening an inquiry if the other authority is dealing, or has dealt, with what is essentially the same complaint, unless the complainant presents significant new evidence in a case where the other authority has already concluded its inquiry.”
Po temeljiti presoji je varuh človekovih pravic na Komisijo naslovil osnutek priporočila, v katerem jo je zaprosil za odobritev dostopa.
The Ombudsman considered, therefore, that it would not be appropriate for him to continue his inquiry in so far as the first leak was concerned.
Po njegovem mnenju je bila razlaga Komisije o ustrezni izjemi pravila o dostopu javnosti tako splošna, da se zdi, da je izjemi odvzela pomen.
However, the Ombudsman requested the Commission to provide him with information on the outcome of its own internal investigations into the information contained in the second and third press articles, as well as with lists of its sta� members and/or third parties who were authorised by it to have access to the personal data that appeared in each of the three press articles.
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, UL 2001 L 145, str. 43.
Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data, OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.
Glej izjavo za javnost Sveta za kmetijstvo in ribištvo z dne 22.–23.oktobra 2007 (dosegljivo na: htt p://www.eu2007.pt/NR/rdonlyres/948633D2-DCD5-4413-AFCD-86688D5161F3/0/96806.pdf).
In reply, the Commission stated that no objective evidence had been found that would enable it to identify the source of the leaked data.
Komisija je v svojem podrobnem mnenju vztrajala, da dostopa ne more odobriti.
The Ombudsman therefore made a critical remark that such a situation was not compatible with the Commission’s obligations under Regulation 45/2001 and constituted an instance of maladministration.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik poudaril, da če je dokument tako občutljive narave, da bi njegovo razkritje lahko zbudilo dvome glede zakonitosti sklepa Komisije, potem interes za razkritje očitno pretehta vse druge interese.
Allegation of unjustified secrecy in CAP database
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da Komisija ni ustrezno obravnavala pritožnikove zahteve.
Summary of decision on complaint 1693/2005/PB against the European Commission
Glede vsebine dokumenta je varuh človekovih pravic sprejel ponudbo Komisije, da ga lahko pregleda. Po tem pregledu je izjavil, da ni prepričan, da bi imelo razkritje dokumenta negativne posledice, na katere se je sklicevala Komisija. a.
It also stated that the reports no longer existed as
Varuh človekovih pravic je primer zaključil s kritično oceno.