natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On this issue, the Ombudsman found maladministration and made a critical remark concerning delay and a second critical remark concerning the standard of the reasons given for its actions.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pri tem vprašanju ugotovil nepravilnost in je podal kritično pripombo glede zamude in še eno kritično pripombo glede načina, kako je utemeljila svoje ravnanje.
With respect to the second critical remark, the Ombudsman noted that, under Regulation 1049/2001, the institutions are required to provide applicants with “detailed reasons” for the extension of the deadline for replying to a confirmatory application.
V zvezi z drugo kritično pripombo je varuh človekovih pravic opozoril, da morajo institucij e v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001 prosilcu podati „podrobne razloge“ za podaljšanje roka za odgovor na potrdilne prošnje.
What constitutes such su ciently “detailed” reasoning may di� er from case to case.
Od vsakega posameznega primera je odvisno, kaj pomeni dovolj „podrobna“ razlaga.
Nevertheless, a simple reference (as in this case), formulated in general terms, to the need to consult other Commission services cannot satisfy the foregoing requirement, since it does not contain adequate elements to enable review of whether the extension is reasonably justified.
Vseeno pa preprosto, splošno formulirano sklicevanje (kot se je zgodilo v tem primeru) na potrebo po posvetovanju z drugimi službami Komisije ni dovolj za zadostitev navedeni zahtevi, saj ne vsebuje zadostnih elementov, ki bi omogočali preučitev, ali je podaljšanje upravičeno.
Such elements could consist of, in particular, explanations as to why the consultation of other specific Commission services is necessary, and why the internal consultation could not have been completed earlier.
Takšni elementi bi lahko vključevali zlasti razlago, zakaj je potrebno posvetovanje z drugimi službami Komisije in zakaj tega internega posvetovanja ni bilo mogoče opraviti prej.
In the present case, the Commission merely justified its extension of the deadline as follows: “for the handling of your application, we have to consult other Commission services”.
Komisija je v tem primeru svoje podaljšanje roka upravičila zgolj z naslednjimi besedami: „za obravnavo vaše vloge se moramo posvetovati z drugimi službami Komisije“.
This kind of statement did not amount to “detailed reasons” within the meaning of Regulation 1049/2001.
Takšna navedba ne ustreza „podrobnim razlogom“ v smislu Uredbe 1049/2001.
The Commission, thus, failed to comply with the relevant statutory requirement.
Komisija tako ni izpolnila ustrezne zakonske zahteve.
Accordingly, its failure to do so constituted an instance of maladministration.
Zato je bilo takšno ravnanje primer nepravilnosti.
Failure to apply Communication on Relations with Complainant
Neupoštevanje Sporočila o odnosih s pritožniki
Summary of decision on complaint 446/2007/WP against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 446/2007/WP zoper Evropsko komisijo o
A German lawyer alleged that the Commission had failed properly to deal with a le4 er in which he had asked it to open infringement proceedings against Germany.
Pravnik iz Nemčije je obtožil Komisijo, da ni pravilno obravnavala pisma, v katerem je zahteval uvedbo postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev zoper Nemčijo.
According to him, Germany was in breach of Community law because it was practically impossible to pursue former or current members of the German government for criminal wrongdoing.
Po njegovem mnenju je Nemčija kršila pravo Skupnosti, ker je bilo praktično nemogoče kazensko preganjati bivše in sedanje člane nemške vlade za kriminalna dejanja. Komisija mu je odgovorila, da ni pristojna za posredovanje v zadevi.
In his le4 er to the Commission opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman pointed out that the Commission’s “Communication on Relations with the Complainant in Respect of Infringements of Community Law”23 could be applicable in this case.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v pismu Komisiji, s katerim je uvedel preiskavo, izpostavil, da bi v tem primeru lahko veljalo njeno „Sporočilo o odnosih s pritožniki v primerih kršitev prava Skupnosti“23
In the Communication, the Commission laid down standards for its contacts with complainants who consider that measures or practices in a Member State infringe Community law.
V njem je Komisija opredelila standarde za stike s pritožniki, ki menijo, da ukrepi ali določena praksa države članice kršijo pravo Skupnosti.
In its opinion, the Commission argued that the Communication was not applicable because the complainant’s complaint did not relate to an area in which it could conduct infringement proceedings, but fell within the scope of police and judicial cooperation in criminal ma4 ers (Title VI of the EU Treaty).
Komisija je sprejela mnenje, v katerem trdi, da Sporočilo v tem primeru ni veljavno, saj se pritožba pritožnika ni nanašala na področje, za katerega bi lahko uvedla postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev,
The Ombudsman noted that the complainant had clearly intended his le4 er to constitute an infringement complaint.
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.
Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law, OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.
Sporočilo Evropskemu parlamentu in Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic o odnosih s pritožniki v primerih kršitev prava Skupnosti, UL 2002 C 244, str. 5.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS to register a correspondence as a complaint, it shall “notify the author to that e� ect by ordinary le4 er se4 ing out one or more of the reasons listed in the second paragraph of point 3”.
Sporočilo pravi, da mora Komisija v primeru, ko se odloči, da dopisovanja ne zapiše kot pritožbo, „obvestiti avtorja o svoji odločitvi z navadno pošto, v kateri je naveden eden ali več razlogov v smislu drugega odstavka točke 3“.
The Ombudsman considered that the Commission’s failure to apply the Communication when it replied to the complainant was maladministration and made a critical remark.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da Komisijino neupoštevanje Sporočila pri pripravi odgovora pritožniku pomeni nepravilnost, in dal kritično oceno.
However, the Ombudsman took the view that the complainant’s complaint indeed appeared to concern a “grievance which clearly falls outside the scope of Community law”.
Vendar pa je varuh človekovih pravic zavzel stališče, da se je pritožba pritožnika v resnici nanašala na „pritožbo, ki nedvoumno ne spada na področje prava Skupnosti“.
In particular, the complainant had not explained in what way he considered that the accountability of politicians in criminal ma4 ers related to an obligation of Germany under the EC Treaty.
Še posebno ker pritožnik ni pojasnil narave povezave med kazensko odgovornostjo politikov v kazenskih zadevah in obveznostjo Nemčije na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission had correctly concluded that it could not investigate the complainant’s concerns by way of an infringement procedure.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da je Komisija pravilno sklenila, da pritožnikovih navedb ne more raziskati v postopku ugotavljanja kršitev.
Failure to publish the annual report 2005 on access to documents
Opustitev objave letnega poročila 2005 o dostopu do dokumentov
Summary of decision on complaint 668/2007/MHZ against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 668/2007/MHZ zoper Evropsko komisijo o
Statewatch complained to the Ombudsman that, contrary to its legal obligation resulting from Article 17(1) of Regulation 1049/200124, the Commission had failed to publish, in 2006, its annual report 2005 on access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Statewatch je vložil pritožbo pri varuhu človekovih pravic, da Komisija v nasprotju z zakonsko obveznostjo, ki izhaja iz člena 17(1) Uredbe 1049/200124, leta 2006 ni objavila letnega poročila za leto 2005 o dostopu do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
According to the complainant, the annual report is the only way for citizens to be informed about the Commission’s response to access to documents requests.
Kot navaja pritožnik, je letno poročilo edini način za obveščanje državljanov o odzivu Komisije na zahteve za dostop do dokumentov.
Statewatch claimed that the failure to publish the report on time was a clear case of maladministration.
Statewatch je trdil, da je zamuda pri objavi poročila očiten primer nepravilnosti.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it was well aware of the obligation to publish an annual report.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da se dobro zaveda svoje obveznosti za objavo letnega poročila.
However, the draing of the report had been delayed because of a major turnover of sta�in the service dealing with access to documents issues.
Vendar pa so pri pripravi poročila nastopile zamude zaradi večjih kadrovskih sprememb v službi, ki je zadolžena za obravnavanje dostopa do dokumentov.
Furthermore, priority had been given to the launching of the public consultation on the review of the access to documents regulation.
Poleg tega je bilo več pomena namenjenega začetku javnega posvetovanja o spremembi uredbe o dostopu do dokumentov.
He found that the Commission’s failure to publish the 2005 report before the end of 2006 was an instance of maladministration and made a critical remark.
Ugotovil je, da je ravnanje Komisije, ko ni objavila poročila za leto 2005 pred koncem leta 2006, primer nepravilnosti, in je podal kritično oceno.
The Ombudsman emphasised that citizens can hardly trust the institutions if they are not able to respect the deadlines they themselves set.
Varuh človekovih pravic je poudaril, da državljani ne morejo zaupati v institucije, če te niso sposobne upoštevati rokov, ki so si jih postavile same.
The Ombudsman also made a further remark, in which he pointed out that the publication of reports is a key mechanism of accountability to, and communication with, European citizens.
Varuh človekovih pravic je podal še eno oceno, v kateri je poudaril, da je objavljanje poročil ključni mehanizem za zagotavljanje odgovornosti do evropskih državljanov in komunikacije z njimi.
The Ombudsman further encouraged the Commission to set a good example to the many new Community agencies which have recently been established, by giving high priority in future to ensuring the timely publication of reports.
Varuh človekovih pravic je še spodbudil Komisijo, naj bo dober zgled za številne nove agencij e Skupnosti, ki so bile ustanovljene v zadnjem času, in naj v prihodnje med svoje najpomembnejše naloge uvrsti pravočasno objavo poročil.
Since, in September 2007, the Commission finally published the report in question, the Ombudsman closed the case.
Ker je Komisija septembra 2007 končno objavila zadevno poročilo, je varuh človekovih pravic zaključil primer.
The European Personnel Selection O ce
Evropski urad za izbor osebja
Challenge to the compulsory online registration and information system for competitions
Spor zaradi obvezne registracije preko spleta in informacijskega sistema za javne natečaje
Summary of decision on complaint 3346/2004/ELB against the European Personnel Selection O ce (EPSO)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3346/2004/ELB zoper Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)
EPSO adopted a system under which candidates in open competitions are required to register and communicate with EPSO on-line.
Evropski urad za izbor osebja je sprejel sistem, po katerem se morajo kandidati pri javnih natečajih registrirati preko spleta in prek njega komunicirati z Evropskim uradom za izbor osebja.
The complainant challenged this system.
Pritožnik je nasprotoval takšnemu sistemu.
His main argument was that this requirement is discriminatory, given the low Internet penetration rate in some Member States and the di culties in gaining access to the Internet in rural areas.
Njegov glavni argument je bil, da je ta zahteva diskriminacijska glede na majhno razširjenost priključkov na internet v nekaterih državah članicah in težave pri pridobitvi dostopa do interneta na podeželju.
EPSO rejected the complainant’s allegations, by referring, in particular, to the reasons for adopting the foregoing system.
Evropski urad za izbor osebja je zavrnil pritožnikove trditve, pri čemer se je skliceval zlasti na razloge za sprejetje prej navedenega sistema.
The Ombudsman, first, noted that the principle of equality of treatment of candidates or potential candidates in competition proceedings is a fundamental principle binding on Community institutions and bodies.
Varuh človekovih pravic je najprej pripomnil. da je načelo enakega obravnavanja kandidatov ali potencialnih kandidatov v postopkih javnih natečajev temeljno načelo, ki je zavezujoče za institucij e in organe Skupnosti.
The Ombudsman found that the requirement at issue is not, in principle, discriminatory and unfair on the basis (i) of certain statistical data about Internet use or accessibility provided by the parties or found on the Eurostat website; (ii) that there was no evidence that a significant number of persons interested in applying to EPSO and participating in EPSO competitions have been prevented from doing so because of their restricted access to the Internet; (iii) that, as a ma4 er of common knowledge and experience, accessibility to the Internet is constantly increasing; (iv) of EPSO’s justifications for the system, namely, greater transparency and improving accessibility to information.
V zvezi s sporno zahtevo je ugotovil, da načeloma ni diskriminacijska in nepoštena na podlagi (i) določenih statističnih podatkov o uporabi interneta ali njegovi dostopnosti, ki so jih posredovale stranke ali so objavljeni na spletni strani Eurostata; (ii) da ni dokazov, da večje število oseb, ki se zanimajo za oddajo vloge pri Evropskem uradu za izbor osebja in sodelovanje pri njegovih javnih natečajih, tega ne more storiti zaradi omejenega dostopa do interneta; (iii) da se dostopnost do interneta stalno izboljšuje, kot je splošno znano in kot kažejo izkušnje; (iv) ni diskriminacijska in nepoštena na podlagi utemeljitve sistema Evropskega urada za izbor osebja, in sicer večje preglednost in boljše dostopnosti do informacij .
However, the Ombudsman did not exclude the possibility that, in certain cases, candidates and potential candidates may have considerable and objectively justifiable di culty in applying to EPSO, or communicating with EPSO, via the Internet.
Vendar varuh človekovih pravic ni izključil možnosti, da imajo morda v nekaterih primerih kandidati in potencialni kandidati precejšnje in objektivno upravičene težave pri predložitvi vloge Evropskemu uradu za izbor osebja ali komuniciranju z njim prek interneta.
In such cases, the abovementioned principle of non-discrimination requires that EPSO provide for an exception to the requirement for online registration and communication.
V takšnih primerih prej navedeno načelo nediskriminacije zahteva, da Evropski urad za izbor osebja omogoči izjemo od zahteve za spletno registracijo in komuniciranje.
The Ombudsman, thus, found that EPSO’s failure to do so amounted to maladministration and addressed a relevant dra recommendation to EPSO.
Tako je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil, da pomeni dejstvo, da Evropski urad za izbor osebja tega ni storil, nepravilnost in je nanj naslovil osnutek ustreznega priporočila.
He also suggested, on the basis of a pertinent analysis, that EPSO could require requests for an exception to be supported by evidence of a kind that the person concerned could reasonably be expected to provide in the circumstances.
Predlagal je tudi, da bi na podlagi ustrezne analize Evropski urad za izbor osebja lahko zahteval, da se zahtevki za izjemo podprejo z dokazili, za katera bi se od zadevne osebe lahko razumno pričakovalo, da jih predloži v danih okoliščinah.
EPSO did not accept the drarecommendation.
Evropski urad za izbor osebja osnutka priporočila ni sprejel.
In doing so, it relied upon arguments that the Ombudsman found unconvincing.
Pri tem se je skliceval na trditve, ki so se varuhu človekovih pravic zdele neprepričljive.
He noted, inter alia, that administrative convenience, in the sense of avoidance of di culties in assessing fairly and even-handedly relevant requests for an exception, taking into account his relevant analysis in the dra recommendation, is insu cient to validate what otherwise is a violation of the principle of equal treatment of candidates or potential candidates.
Med drugim je ob upoštevanju svoje ustrezne analize iz osnutka priporočila, pripomnil, da je bila upravna korist v smislu preprečevanja težav pri pošteni in pravični oceni ustreznih zahtevkov za izjemo, nezadostna za potrditev tega, kar je sicer kršitev načela enakega obravnavanja kandidatov ali potencialnih kandidatov.
The Ombudsman, thus, maintained his above finding of maladministration and closed the case with a critical remark.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic vztrajal pri prej navedeni ugotovitvi glede nepravilnosti in primer zaključil s kritično oceno.
Linguistic requirements of candidates in open competitions
Jezikovne zahteve za kandidate v javnih natečajih
Summary of decision on complaint 3114/2005/MHZ against the European Personnel Selection O ce (EPSO)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3114/2005/MHZ zoper Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO)
The complaint concerned the language regime for recruitment competitions, following the enlargement of 1 May 2004, when ten new Member States joined the Union.
Pritožba zadeva jezikovno ureditev za natečaje za zaposlovanje po širitvi 1. maja 2004, ko se je Evropski uniji pridružilo deset novih držav članic.
EPSO then organised two sets of competitions.
EPSO je nato organiziral dva sklopa natečajev.
The first set of competitions was restricted to nationals of the new Member States.
Prvi sklop natečajev je bil omejen na državljane novih držav članic.
Candidates had to have one of the 10 languages of the new Member States as their main language.
Prvi jezik kandidatov je moral biti eden od 10-ih jezikov novih držav članic.
They also had to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of one of the 11 languages of the old Member States. Furthermore, they were obliged to take part of the tests in English, French, or German.
Kandidati so morali dokazati tudi zadovoljivo znanje enega od 11-ih jezikov starih držav članic in poleg tega opraviti preizkuse v angleškem, francoskem ali nemškem jeziku.
The second set of competitions was open to nationals of all 25 Member States.
Drugi sklop natečajev je bil odprt za državljane vseh 25-ih držav članic.
Candidates had to have one of the 11 languages of the old Member States as their main language and demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of another of those 11 languages.
Kandidati so morali navesti enega od 11-ih jezikov starih držav članic kot svoj prvi jezik in dokazati zadovoljivo znanje še enega izmed teh 11-ih jezikov.
They were not, however, obliged to demonstrate knowledge of English, French, or German.
Vendar pa se od kandidatov ni zahtevalo, da dokažejo znanje angleškega, francoskega ali nemškega jezika.
The Association of Graduates of the Polish National School of Public Administration complained that, by organising the competitions in this way, EPSO had discriminated against citizens of the new Member States.
Združenje diplomantov poljske nacionalne šole za javno upravo se je pritožilo, da je EPSO s takšno organizacij o natečajev diskriminiralo državljane novih držav članic.
In its opinion, EPSO took the view that each competition has its own objectives and, therefore, discrimination or unfair treatment could not be alleged on the basis of a comparison of one notice of competition with another.
EPSO je izrazil stališče, da ima vsak natečaj svoje cilje in da se zato ne more na podlagi primerjave enega obvestila o natečaju z drugim obvestilom o natečaju domnevati, da gre za diskriminacijo ali nepravično obravnavo.
EPSO also pointed to Regulation 401/2004 (“the Regulation”) as the legal basis for the competitions in question.
Poudaril je, da je Uredba 401/2004 („Uredba“) pravna podlaga za zadevne natečaje.
The Ombudsman asked EPSO to explain why only the 11 “old” languages were acceptable as the second language and why only candidates from new Member States were required to have knowledge of English, French, or German.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zaprosil EPSO, da razloži, zakaj je le 11 „starih“ jezikov sprejemljivih kot drugi jezik in zakaj so morali le kandidati iz novih držav članic dokazati znanje angleškega, francoskega ali nemškega jezika.
In reply, EPSO stated that the knowledge of one of the 11 languages was “be4 er suited to the realities of the administrative organisation of the institutions during the transitional period”, and that “there is no possible obligation to take account of the immense variety of individual choices that candidates could make when choosing a second language.”
V odgovoru je EPSO navedel, da je znanje enega od 11-ih jezikov „bolj primerno glede na resnične razmere v upravni organizacij i institucijmed prehodnim obdobjem“ in da „ni možna nikakršna obveznost upoštevanja ogromne raznolikosti posameznih odločitev kandidatov pri izbiri drugega jezika“.
The Ombudsman’s analysis of the case began by recalling Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which forbids discrimination on grounds of nationality, and the case-law of the Community Courts concerning the principle of non-discrimination.
Varuh človekovih pravic je začel analizo tega primera s sklicevanjem na člen 12 Pogodbe ES, ki prepoveduje diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva, ter sodno prakso sodišč Skupnosti v zvezi z načelom nediskriminacije. e.
He pointed out that legislation must be interpreted in the light of these legal principles and that language requirements for employment may constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality, unless they are justified. ed.
Poudaril je, da je treba zakonodajo tolmačiti glede na ta pravna načela in da lahko jezikovne zahteve za zaposlovanje, če niso utemeljene, pomenijo posredno diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva.
The Ombudsman considered that the requirements as regards the main languages of the competitions were authorised by the Regulation.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da Uredba dovoljuje zahteve v zvezi s prvimi jeziki natečajev.
However, the Regulation said nothing about requirements for second languages, nor did it require knowledge of English, French, or German.
Vendar pa Uredba ne določa ničesar v zvezi z zahtevami za drugi jezik niti ne zahteva znanje angleškega, francoskega ali nemškega jezika.
Whilst in principle there might be convincing reasons why knowledge of specific Community languages could be necessary for the performance of a future o cial’s duties, EPSO had not adequately explained why only the 11 old languages were acceptable as a second language.
Čeprav načeloma morda obstajajo prepričljivi razlogi, da je znanje določenih jezikov Skupnosti lahko potrebno za opravljanje nalog bodočega uradnika, pa EPSO ni zadostno utemeljil, zakaj je le 11 starih jezikov sprejemljivih kot drugi jezik.
The Ombudsman also accepted that it might be justifiable to require knowledge of specific languages to ensure e cient internal communication.
Varuh je tudi priznal, da se znanje določenih jezikov lahko utemeljeno zahteva za zagotovitev učinkovitega notranjega komuniciranja.
But EPSO had not explained why it considered it was essential for candidates from the new Member States to know English, French, or German, but not
Vendar pa EPSO ni razložil, zakaj je menil, da je nujno, da kandidati iz novih držav članic znajo angleški, francoski ali nemški jezik, medtem ko kandidatom v drugem sklopu natečajev ni bilo treba dokazati znanja enega od teh jezikov, čeprav bi obe skupini kandidatov opravljali pretežno enake naloge.
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 necessary for candidates in the second set of competitions to demonstrate knowledge of one of those languages, even though the two groups of candidates would carry out substantially identical functions.
LETNO POROČILO 2007
Failure to ensure compliance of river reconstruction works with EU law
Neskladnost obnovitvenih del na reki z zakonodajo EU