natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The evaluation commi4 ee, assisted by two additional Bulgarian linguists, had decided to accept two of the complainant’s arguments.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju poudarila, da je pritožniku po izvedeni preiskavi in glede na dokaze, ki jih je predložil, hitro povrnila znesek v višini 5 395 EUR. V nadaljevanju je navedla, da je bilo to plačilo knjiženo na njenem računu 20. decembra 2006.
The Commission apologised to the complainant for the inconvenience caused.
Komisija je tudi dala pobudo, da bi pritožniku povrnila obresti.
The Commission furthermore informed the Ombudsman that the complainant had now been o � ered a framework contract.
Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah potrdil, da je bil ustrezen znesek v celoti povrnjen in da je z izidom tega primera zadovoljen. Pritožnik se je zahvalil varuhu človekovih pravic za pomoč.
The complainant told the Ombudsman’s services that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved his problem.
Varuh človekovih pravic je bil zadovoljen, da je Komisija ukrepala za rešitev zadeve in tako ugodila pritožniku.
The Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Commission had rapidly addressed and resolved the problem raised by the complainant and that it had apologised to him.
Varuh človekovih pravic je v svoji odločbi poudaril, da se je služba Komisije, zadolžena za primer (generalni direktorat Komisije za izobraževanje in kulturo), hitro odzvala pri reševanju primera.
He concluded that the Commission had taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Zdelo se je, da je bilo poglavitno vprašanje uspešno rešeno do 20. decembra 2006, tj. manj kot dva tedna po tem, ko je bila na Komisijo naslovljena pritožba.
Failure properly to handle payment due under a contract
Zavrnitev prošnje za pripravništvo zaradi preteklih delovnih izkušenj
Summary of decision on complaint 3495/2006/GG (Confidential) against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 471/2007/VIK zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The European Commission agreed to provide a maximum grant of EUR 45 156. An advance payment of EUR 40 640 was made.
Obvestili so jo, da je njena prošnja zavrnjena, ker ni izpolnjevala meril o izpolnjevanju pogojev iz točke 2.3 Pravil o programu pripravništva za uslužbence Komisije („Pravila“).
At the end, the complainant’s total expenditure amounted to EUR 42 833. The handling of the project was entrusted to a Technical Assistance O ce (TAO).
V skladu s točko 2.3 Pravil Komisija ne upošteva prošenj oseb, ki so že bile vključene v kakršno koli vrsto usposabljanja na delovnem mestu, ki je trajalo več kot šest tednov.
In March 2002, the TAO informed the complainant that two items of expenditure amounting to EUR 5 395 and EUR 4 111 were not considered eligible.
Pritožnica je v svoji pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdila, da je bila njena prošnja nepravilno zavrnjena, ker je svoje delovne izkušnje, ki niso bile nepretrgane, pridobila med plenarnimi zasedanji Parlamenta in so skupaj trajale le tri tedne.
The TAO noted that the final grant amounted to EUR 33 327. The complainant accepted the deduction of the amount of EUR 5 395 and returned this amount to the TAO.
Poleg tega je navedla, da oblika obrazca za elektronsko prošnjo vlagateljem v njenem položaju ni omogočala, da prij avij o delovne izkušnje, ki niso nepretrgane, in da Komisija ni ustrezno spremenila oblike obrazca. Pritožnica je pripomnila, da je Komisija zavrnila tudi njen poskus, da bi se ponovno prijavila za pripravništvo.
The Commission informed the complainant that the sum to be reimbursed thus amounted to EUR 3 202.
Trdila je, da bi ji morali dovoliti, da predloži prošnjo za pripravništvo, in da bi bilo treba elektronski obrazec za prošnjo spremeniti tako, da se lahko prij avij o delovne izkušnje, ki niso nepretrgane.
According to the complainant, this calculation was erroneous.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju razložila, da je bila prošnja pritožnice zavrnjena na podlagi dejstva, da je delo v zvezi s pripravami in nadaljnjimi ukrepi za plenarna zasedanja zahtevalo več kot le navzočnost na sestankih.
It appeared that the Commission had added the amount of EUR 4 111 to the amount of EUR 33 327 that had already been accepted and then deducted this sum (of EUR 37 438) from the advance of EUR 40 640 that had already been released.
Poleg tega je ugotovila, da je imela pritožnica službeno izkaznico z veljavnostjo treh mesecev.
The Commission had thus omi4 ed to take into account the fact that the complainant had already returned an amount of EUR 5 395.
Kljub temu je Komisija poudarila, da je po ponovnem pregledu njenega spisa in zlasti izjave poslanca Evropskega parlamenta, s katerim je delala, predlagala, da se prošnja pritožnice sprejme in predloži predizbirni komisiji za obdobje pripravništva, ki se začne oktobra 2007.
In March 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that it considered that an error had occurred and that the Commission in e� ect owed it an amount of EUR 2 193 (i.e., the di� erence between the Commission’s claim over EUR 3 202 and the amount already reimbursed of EUR 5 395).
Glede oblike elektronskega obrazca za prošnjo je Komisija pojasnila, da so morali vlagatelji v obrazcu prijaviti le pomembne poklicne izkušnje, ki so trajale najmanj en mesec. Komisija je dejala, da v času, ko se je obrazec za prošnjo oblikoval, poklicne izkušnje, ki so trajale manj kot en mesec, niso veljale za pomembne in jih zato ni bilo treba prijaviti. aviti.
However, in May 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that, given that the sum of EUR 3 202 had not been reimbursed, it would be set o� against other claims that the complainant had against the Commission.
Pritožnica je potrdila, da je zadovoljna z načinom, kako je Komisija uredila zadevo. Varuh je postopek zaključil kot primer, ki ga je rešila institucija. a.
The complainant’s further e� orts to convince the Commission of the fact that a mistake had occurred were unsuccessful.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1471/2007(CC)/RT zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed to handle the ma4 er properly.
Leta 2004 je svetovalno podjetje s sedežem v Franciji sodelovalo v programu Tehnologije informacijske družbe (TID), ki ga podpira Evropska komisija.
It claimed that the Commission should reimburse an amount of EUR 5 395, as well as interest amounting to EUR 44.47.
Komisija je pristala na plačilo 178 415,10 EUR za pritožnikovo sodelovanje v projektu.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that, a er having carried out an examination and in view of the evidence submi4 ed by the complainant, it had hastened to pay back the amount of EUR 5 395 to the complainant.
Julija 2005 je pritožnik zaprosil za povračilo stroškov prvega obroka v znesku 90 379,00 EUR, ki ga je Komisija plačala. V drugi izjavi o stroških je pritožnik zaprosil še za preostali znesek v znesku 88 036,10 EUR.
It went on to state that this payment had been debited to its account on 20 December 2006.
Leto pozneje je Komisija posredovala končno finančno poročilo, ki pa ni zajemalo neporavnanega zneska.
The Commission also took the initiative of reimbursing the interest to the complainant.
Ker Komisija ni zadovoljivo obrazložila svoje zavrnitve plačila zahtevanega zneska, se je pritožnik obrnil na varuha človekovih pravic.
In its observations, the complainant confirmed that the relevant amount had been reimbursed in its entirety and that it was satisfied with the outcome of this case.
V svojem mnenju Komisija navaja, da je dosegla dogovor s pritožnikom neposredno in da je pritožniku povrnila preostali znesek v znesku 88 036,10 EUR.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance in this case.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je bil v celoti zadovoljen z načinom, na katerega je bil njegov problem rešen.
The Ombudsman was pleased to note that the Commission had taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Varuh človekovih pravic je primer zaključil, saj je Komisija zadevo poravnala v korist pritožnika.
It appeared that the main issue was e� ectively solved by 20 December 2006, i.e., less than two weeks a er the complaint had been forwarded to the Commission.
SPORAZUMNE REŠITVE, KIJIHJE DOSEGEL VARUH ČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
Summary of decision on complaint 471/2007/VIK against the European Commission
Domnevno neupravičena izterjava zneska v okviru razvojnega projekta
The complainant, a Portuguese national, applied for an in-service traineeship at the Commission.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2577/2004/OV (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisijo o
She was informed that her application had been rejected as she did not meet the eligibility criteria described in Point 2.3 of the Rules governing the o cial traineeship scheme of the Commission (“the Rules”).
Pritožnik, podjetje, ki je sodelovalo v konzorciju, je bilo pogodbenik pri izvajanju projekta Komisije „Podpora EU pri ponovni usposobitvi libanonske uprave“.
According to Point 2.3 of the Rules, applications from persons who had already benefited from any kind of in-service training for more than six weeks were not accepted by the Commission.
Pritožnik je avgusta 1999 podpisal pogodbo z naročnikom projekta, ministrom za upravne reforme Libanonske republike (OMSAR).
In her complaint to the Ombudsman the complainant alleged that her application had been incorrectly rejected, as her non-consecutive work experience took place during Parliament’s plenary sessions and lasted a total of only three weeks.
Pritožnik se je srečeval z veliko težavami glede načina, na katerega je projekt obravnavala delegacij a Komisije v Libanonu.
She further alleged that the format of the electronic application form did not allow applicants in her situation to declare non-consecutive work experience and that the Commission had failed to change the form accordingly.
Z dopisom z dne 22. januarja 2003 je delegacij a obvestila pritožnika, da bo izterjan znesek 29 306,65 EUR, ki ustreza dnevnicam in stroškom za letalske vozovnice, ki jih je konzorcijzaračunal za zaledno skupino (podpora s strani centrale).
The complainant submi4 ed that her a4 empt to reapply for a traineeship had also been rejected by the Commission. She claimed that she should be allowed to submit an application for a traineeship and that the electronic application form should be altered so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.
Pritožnik je mnenja, da je Komisija z nepravičnim obravnavanjem pogodbe pritožniku povzročila velike finančne izgube in tudi škodovala ugledu konzorcija. a.
In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant’s application had been rejected on the grounds that preparatory and followup work for the plenary sessions must have required more than mere a4 endance during the sessions.
Pritožnik je avgusta 2004 vložil pritožbo pri varuhu človekovih pravic.
Furthermore, it had learned that the complainant had had a service card which was valid for three months.
Pritožnik navaja, da (i) je odločba Komisije za izterjavo zneska v vrednosti 29 306,65 EUR neupravičena in (ii) da je Komisija na načrt, ki ga je konzorcij oddal junij a in decembra 2002 ter ponovno marca 2003 za drugo stopnjo projekta, omahovala z odločitvijo in se ni odzivala.
However, the Commission pointed out that, a er having reviewed her fi le again and in particular the declaration from the MEP with whom she had worked, it had proposed to accept the complainant’s application as eligible and to submit it to the pre-selection commi4 ees for the training period to begin in October 2007.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik tudi navedel, da (iii) je bil predlog za drugo stopnjo projekta enostavno zavrnjen, ne da bi OMSAR ali pritožnik dobila priložnost za zaslišanje.
As regards the format of the electronic application form, the Commission clarified that the applicants were invited to declare in the form only relevant professional experience with a minimum duration of one month.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju glede prve navedbe navedla, da je imela dovolj pravne podlage, da zahteva povračilo tega zneska.
The Commission stated that, at the time the application form was designed,
Glede druge navedbe je Komisija navedla, da zamud ne gre
ANNUAL REPORT 2007 professional experience of less than one month had not been considered relevant and thus did not need to be declared.
LETNO POROČILO 2007 pripisovati izključno njej in da ni ostala nedejavna. Komisija je zavrnila tretjo navedbo pritožnika in navedla, da je bila do pritožnika nadvse prilagodljiva.
The complainant confirmed that she was satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved the ma4 er.
Po temeljiti analizi primera je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da je treba razlikovati med desetdnevnim obdobjem pred začetkom projekta (oktobra 1999) in preostankom obdobja trajanja pogodbe.
The Ombudsman closed the case as se4 led by the institution.
Glede na obdobje pred začetkom projekta je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da je z odločbo za izterjavo potnih stroškov in dnevnic zaledne skupine Komisija ravnala nepravilno.
Summary of decision on complaint 1471/2007/(CC)/RT against the European Commission
Komisiji je predlagal, da spremeni svojo odločbo za izterjavo zneska v vrednosti 29 306,65 EUR.
The Commission agreed to pay EUR 178 415.10 for the complainant’s participation in the project.
Glede drugih dveh navedb je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da ne gre za nepravilno ravnanje Komisije. e.
In July 2005, the complainant asked for the reimbursement of a first amount of EUR 90 379.00 which was paid by the Commission.
V svojem odgovoru na predlog prijateljske rešitve je Komisija navedla, da je v interesu, da se zadeva uredi, primer ponovno ocenila in sprejela predlog varuha človekovih pravic.
In a second cost statement, the complainant applied for the remaining amount of EUR 88 036.10.
Komisija je razložila, da je stroške v skupni vrednosti 3 536,23 EUR, ki ustrezajo dnevnicam in letalskim kartam, sprejela kot upravičene in jih odštela od zneska, ki mora biti izterjan.
One year later, the Commission sent the final financial statement which did not include the outstanding sum.
Zato se znesek, ki se mora izterjati od pritožnika, zniža na 25 770,42 EUR.
As the Commission did not provide a satisfactory explanation for its failure to pay the amount requested, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnik sprejel prijateljsko rešitev in se zahvalil varuhu človekovih pravic za njegovo posredovanje.
In its opinion, the Commission stated that it had reached agreement with the complainant in direct contacts and had reimbursed the complainant the remaining amount of EUR 88 036.10.
V svoji odločbi je varuh človekovih pravic navedel, da sta se pritožnik in Komisija dogovorila za prijateljsko rešitev.
The complainant stated that he was entirely satisfied with the way in which his problem had been solved.
Varuh človekovih pravic je zato primer zaključil.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
Evropski center za spremljanje rasizma in ksenofobije e
The Ombudsman closed the case since the Commission had se4 led the ma4 er to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Domnevna nezagotovitev ustreznih informacij neuspešnemu ponudniku
FRIENDLYSOLUTIONS ACHIEVED BY THE OMBUDSMAN
Pritožnik je prosil gospoda D., vodjo enote v Evropskem centru za spremljanje rasizma in ksenofobije (EUMC), da mu razloži, zakaj njegovi ponudbi na dva javna razpisa nista bili uspešni.
The European Commission
V prvi pritožbi je pritožnik tudi trdil, da EUMC ni uporabil preglednih meril.
Alleged unjustified recovery of a sum in the framework of a development project
Pri tem je na splošno pripomnil, da vsak dan prejme približno 300 neželenih elektronskih sporočil.
Summary of decision on complaint 2577/2004/OV (Confidential) against the European Commission
Skliceval se je na obvestilo o oddaji naročila, ki vsebuje ime uspešnega ponudnika in ceno njegove ponudbe, ter sporočil bonitetne ocene in razlage, pri čemer je trdil, da je bil postopek pregleden.
The complainant, a company participating in a consortium, was a contractor in the implementation of the Commission’s project “EU Assistance to the Rehabilitation of the Lebanese Administration”.
Varuh človekovih pravic ni bil zadovoljen z razlagami, ki jih je predstavil EUMC.
In August 1999, the complainant signed a contract with the Contracting Authority for the project, namely, the Minister of State for Administrative Reform of the Republic of Lebanon (OMSAR).
V zvezi s tem je opomnil, da je uprava dolžna zagotoviti zahtevane informacije, razen kadar obstajajo utemeljeni in ustrezni razlogi, da tega ne stori.
The complainant faced several problems concerning the way in which the project was handled by the Commission Delegation in Lebanon.
Poleg tega mora uradnik, ki prejme prošnje za informacij e o zadevah, za katere ni odgovoren(-na), ali (i) zagotoviti podatke o odgovorni kontaktni osebi ali (ii) prošnjo posredovati neposredno odgovorni osebi.
By le4 er of 22 January 2003, the Delegation informed the complainant that an amount of EUR 29 306.65 corresponding to per diem and air ticket costs invoiced by the consortium for the backstopping (home o ce support) team would be recovered.
V tem primeru pa ni bil sprejet noben od teh ukrepov. Varuh je nadalje pripomnil, da je namen načela preglednosti omogočiti, da se preveri, ali se upošteva načelo enake obravnave ponudnikov, ter olajšati pregled nepristranskosti in
According to the complainant, the Commission’s unfair handling of the contract resulted in serious fi financial losses for the complainant while also causing damage to the consortium’s reputation.
Varuh človekovih pravic ugotavlja, da v skladu s členom 33 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 168/2007 z dne 15. februarja 2007 EUMC preneha obstajati s 1. marcem 2007 in da od takrat njegovo vlogo opravlja Agencij a Evropske unije za temeljne pravice.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS
PRIMERI, ZAKLJUČENIS KRITIČNO OCENO VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIHPRAVIC
As regards the second allegation, the Commission stated that the delays were not exclusively a4 ributable to it and that it had not remained passive.
Neustrezna obrazložitev in manjkajoča informacij a o oceni, dobljeni na ustnem preizkusu
He therein suggested that the Commission could review its decision to recover the amount of EUR 29 306.65.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1782/2004/OV (Zaupno) zoper Evropski parlament
As regards the other two allegations, the Ombudsman considered that there was no maladministration.
Pritožnik se je udeležil javnega natečaja, ki ga je organiziral Evropski parlament, vendar ga je slednji obvestil, da je na ustnem preizkusu dobil samo oceno 19/40 in zato njegovega imena ne morejo uvrstiti na rezervni seznam.
The Commission explained that expenses totalling EUR 3 536.23, corresponding to per diems and air tickets, had now been deemed eligible and had been deducted from the amount to be recovered.
Navedel je, da je po njegovem mnenju rezultat nerazumljivo nizek, in zaprosil za pregled njegovega ustnega preizkusa in uvrstitev njegovega imena na rezervni seznam.
Therefore, the amount to be recovered from the complainant would be reduced to EUR 25 770.42.
Zaprosil je tudi za razčlenitev in ponderiranje ocen za vsak predmet ustnega preizkusa.
In its observations, the complainant accepted the friendly solution and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.
Po mnenju pritožnika mu je Parlament 25. marca 2005 poslal nedoločen in neustrezno utemeljen odgovor, v katerem je samo potrdil svoje ocene.
In his decision, the Ombudsman noted that a friendly solution had been agreed between the complainant and the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closed the file. file.
Junij a 2004 se je pritožnik pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic in trdil, da mu je služba Parlamenta za natečaje na njegovo pismo z dne 11. marca 2004 poslala nedoločen in neustrezno utemeljen odgovor.
The European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia
Parlament je v svojem mnenju navedel, da je v pismu z dne 25. marca 2004 ponovno potrdil ocene pritožnika.
Alleged failure to provide adequate information to an unsuccessful tenderer
Pripomnil je, da je izbirna komisija upoštevala obvestilo o natečaju in da ni bilo ugotovljenih nepravilnosti.
Summary of decisions on complaints 1858/2005/BB and 1859/2005/BB against the European
Opozoril je tudi, da je zadevni natečaj sestavljal samo en ustni preizkus, s katerim naj bi se ocenila uspešnost vsakega kandidata v primerjavi z uspešnostjo drugih kandidatov.
Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)12
Nadalje je pojasnil, da zaradi dejstva, da je bila samo ena splošna ocena, pritožniku ni mogel sporočiti „pravil nih“ odgovorov na vprašanja niti zagotoviti podrobne razčlenitve njegove ocene.
The complainant asked Mr D., a Head of Unit in the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), to explain why his o� ers in response to two Open Calls for Tender had been unsuccessful.
Varuh človekovih pravic je opravil dodatne poizvedbe v zvezi z več vidiki pritožnikovih trditev ter pregledal dokumentacijo Parlamenta v zvezi z natečajem in oceno pritožnikovega ustnega preizkusa.
Mr D. replied to the first request, but he did not reply to the complainant’s subsequent requests to know the identity of the winning organisation and the cost of its o� er and to obtain a comparison of the rating grades and the scores of his o� ers and the winning o� ers.
Med pregledom se je izkazalo, da razen enega splošnega stavka v končnem poročilu izbirne komisije, ni bilo na voljo druge dokumentacije v zvezi z oceno ustnih preizkusov kandidatov.
The Ombudsman notes that in accordance with Article 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007, the EUMC ceased to exist with e� ect from 1 March 2007 and its role is therea er carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Glej zadevo C-92/00, HI, Recueil [2002] I-5553, odstavek 46.
According to the EUMC, the requests were not addressed to the designated contact person, and ought to have been sent by ordinary or registered mail, not by e-mail.
V kritični oceni je varuh človekovih pravic opozoril, da je še zlasti pomembno, da Parlament v primeru, ko je samo en ustni preizkus s samo eno splošno oceno, ustrezno obravnava zahtevke za ponovno preučitev te ocene.
It made a general reference to receiving approximately 300 “spam” e-mails per day.
V zvezi s pritožnikovimi zahtevami ni bilo ugotovljenih nepravilnosti.
It referred to the contract award notice for the name of the winning o� er and the cost of its o� er and provided the rating grades and explanations, maintaining that the procedure had been transparent.
Nato je zagovarjal stališče, da takšen potek postopka ne bi povzročil neznosne obremenitve zaradi dodatnega dela v primerih, kadar je število kandidatov, ki opravljajo ustni preizkus, omejeno.
The Ombudsman was not satisfied with the EUMC’s explanations.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2825/2004/OV (Zaupno) zoper Evropski parlament
In this regard, he recalled that the Administration is required to provide the requested information unless there are valid and adequate grounds for not doing so.
Pritožnik se je novembra 2002 prijavil na razpis za delovno mesto vodje informacijskega urada Parlamenta v državi članici.
Moreover, a er receiving requests for information on ma4 ers for which he or she is not responsible, an o cial should either (i) provide the contact references of the person responsible or (ii) forward the request directly to the person responsible.
Predsednik izbirne komisije ga je februarja 2003 obvestil, da se na podlagi primerjalne presoje sposobnosti kandidatov ni uvrstil med šest najboljših kandidatov, ki so bili povabljeni na razgovor.
Relatedly, the duty to provide reasons addresses the need to ensure an appropriate level of transparency in contract-awarding procedures13.
Pritožnik je domneval, da je njegovemu imenovanju na to delovno mesto nasprotovala določena politična stranka.