natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We are able, in the context of our application to inform ourselves of our procedures in selecting suitable translators, and could swear to this officially, and could also certify that all translators used on any project would comply with your minimum qualification requirement.
V okviru naše ponudbe vas lahko obvestimo o naših postopkih izbire primernih prevajalcev in to tudi uradno potrdimo s prisego, lahko pa tudi potrdimo, da bodo vsi prevajalci pri katerem koli projektu zadostili vašim minimalnim zahtevam.
Would this be sufficient?
Bi bilo to dovolj?
We could also send illustrative information on likely translators but would these all have to be certified?”
Lahko bi vam poslali tudi osnovne podatke o mogočih prevajalcih, vendar ali bi morale biti te informacij e overjene?”
The complainant had also asked what legal relationship would bind his company’s subcontractors to the Commission.
Pritožnik je vprašal tudi, v kakšnem pravnem razmerju bi bil podizvajalec njegovega podjetja s Komisijo.
According to the complainant, the above was not clear from the supplied information.
Po navedbah pritožnika zgoraj omenjenih informacij ni mogel najti v razpoložljivi dokumentaciji. i.
The tender specifications, and more specifically paragraph 2.3.3.2., were unambiguous as regards possible requirements.
Razpisni pogoji, natančneje odstavek 2.3.3.2, jasno določajo možne zahteve.
No certified information on staff or on subcontractors was required.
Podatkov o osebju ali o podizvajalcih ni potrebno overiti.
This fact was confirmed in the FAQ website’s answer to the following questions: “Do the photocopies of the degree certificates also have to be certified?
To je zapisano tudi na spletni strani FAQ, v odgovoru na naslednja vprašanja: “Ali morajo biti fotokopije potrdil o diplomi overjene?
Do the two copies of the tender also have to be certified?
Ali morata biti overjeni tudi kopij i ponudbe?
Who should the copies be certified by?”
Kdo mora overiti kopije?” V odgovoru je med drugim zapisano, da “kopij potrdil o diplomi ni treba overiti, za razliko od drugih zahtevanih dokumentov”.
Furthermore, paragraph 2.3.3.2. stated that “in any event, the principal contractor shall assume sole liability for the performance of the contract”.
Nadalje je v odstavku 2.3.3.2. zapisano, da “glavna pogodbena stranka v vsakem primeru prevzame celotno odgovornost za izvajanje pogodbe”.
The complainant had also made remarks as regards the requirement of certified copies in general and specifically the answer to a certain FAQ stating “unlike other supporting documentation, the copies of the degree certificates do not have to be certified.
Pritožnik je omenil tudi zahtevo po overjenih kopijah na splošno, še posebej odgovor na eno od pogosto zastavljenih vprašanj, ki pravi: “... kopij potrdil o diplomi ni potrebno overiti, za razliko od drugih zahtevanih dokumentov.
One original bid must be submi ed, including originals or certified true copies.
Poslati je treba eno izvirno ponudbo, skupaj z izvirniki ali overjenimi kopijami.
The two copies should simply be photocopies of the original bid, including the annexes.
Dve kopij i naj bosta preprosto fotokopiji izvirne ponudbe, vključno s prilogami.
The certification must be done by an appropriate authority, e.g. a solicitor or notary.
Overitev mora opraviti ustrezni pristojni organ, recimo odvetnik ali notar.
Self-certification is not acceptable.”
Lastna overitev ni sprejemljiva.”
The complainant considered this answer to be ambiguous, wondering which were the certified documents or originals that had to be included if copies of degrees did not have to be certified. ed.
Pritožnik je menil, da je ta odgovor dvoumen, saj ni vedel, katere overjene dokumente ali izvirnike mora priložiti, če kopijdiplom ni potrebno overiti.
The tender specifications were unambiguous.
Razpisni pogoji so bili nedvoumni.
Paragraph 2.1.1. listed six possible grounds for exclusion from participation.
V odstavku 2.1.1. je navedenih šest razlogov za izključitev od udeležbe.
The answer to the FAQ clearly referred to this paragraph of the tender specifications, which unequivocally listed the documents for which an original or a certified true copy had to be provided.
Odgovor na spletni strani FAQ se nedvoumno nanaša na ta odstavek v razpisnih pogojih, ki je jasno navedel dokumente, pri katerih je potrebno poslati izvirnik ali pa overjeno kopijo. o.
The complainant had further asked whether a sworn statement before a notary would be sufficient to prove that his company was not bankrupt or subject to bankruptcy procedures, since it was not possible to obtain a Certificate of Good Conduct in Britain.
Pritožnik je nadalje vprašal, ali zaprisežena izjava pred notarjem zadostuje kot dokazilo, da njegovo podjetje ni propadlo ali v stečajnem postopku, ker v Veliki Britaniji ni bilo mogoče pridobiti potrdila o dobrem poslovanju.
The answer to this question was found in the last sentence of paragraph 2.1.1. in the tender specifications, which said that “where no such certificate is issued in the country concerned, it may be replaced by a sworn or solemn statement made by the tenderer before a judicial or administrative authority or a notary in his country of establishment”.
Na to vprašanje odgovarja zadnji stavek odstavka 2.1.1. v razpisnih pogojih: “... če v določeni državi takšnega potrdila ne izdajajo, ga lahko nadomesti zaprisežena ali slovesna izjava ponudnika pred sodnim ali upravnim organom ali notarjem v državi sedeža.”
As a general comment on the allegation of failure to answer questions, the Commission further points out that the policy regarding contacts between the tenderers and the awarding authorities
V splošni pripombi na trditev o opustitvi odgovora na vprašanja je Komisij a nadalje opozorila, da so v oddelku 1.12. razpisnih pogojev83 opisani stiki med ponudniki in naročnikom.
The fact that there is no requirement of certified information on staffor subcontractors in paragraph 2.3.3.2. in the tender specifications does not necessarily imply that no such certified information is required if such a requirement is suggested elsewhere.
Odsotnost zahteve po overitvi podatkov o osebju ali podizvajalcih v odstavku 2.3.3.2. v razpisnih pogojih ne pomeni nujno, da ni potrebno overiti nobenih podatkov, če je ta zahteva omenjena kje drugje.
In reply to a certain FAQ, it was stated that “unlike other supporting documentation, the copies of the degree certificates do not have to be certified.
V odgovoru na eno od pogosto zastavljenih vprašanj je omenjeno, da “kopij potrdil o diplomi ni treba overiti, za razliko od druge potrebne dokumentacije.
One original bid must be submi ed, including originals or certified copies”.
Poslati je treba eno izvirno ponudbo, skupaj z izvirniki ali overjenimi kopijami”.
One interpretation of this juxtaposition, for which a clarification could reasonably be requested, is that as far as degree certificates are concerned, certified copies are not required, only originals.
Ena od razlag te razmejitve, za katero bi lahko upravičeno zahtevali pojasnilo, je, da pri potrdilih o diplomi niso potrebne overjene kopije, temveč le originali.
Furthermore, paragraph 2.1.1. in the tender specifications was ambiguous since the final sentence clearly referred back to the previous sentence which in turn referred to subparagraph (d) alone: “the tenderer must also provide proof that he has fulfilled these obligations in the form of a recent certificate”.
Nadalje je odstavek 2.1.1. razpisnih pogojev dvoumen, ker se zadnji stavek očitno nanaša na prejšnji stavek, ki pa velja zgolj za pododstavek (d): “ponudnik mora predložiti tudi dokazila v obliki svežega potrdila, da je izpolnil te obveznosti”.
It was not at all clear that this alternative evidential method also applied to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) and the answer to the complainant’s question could not necessarily have been inferred from the wording of the paragraph.
Iz besedila ni jasno razvidno, da se ta alternativna oblika dokazil nanaša tudi na pododstavke (a), (b) in (e), iz besedila odstavka pa ni nujno možno sklepati na odgovor na vprašanje pritožnika.
Furthermore, in a subsequent tender procedure, the Commission did explain which sub-paragraphs in paragraph 2.1.1. were covered by the last sentence of that paragraph.
V naslednjem javnem razpisu je Komisij a vključila razlago, na katere pododstavke odstavka 2.1.1. se nanaša zadnji stavek tega odstavka.
Finally, the justification put forward by the Commission for not responding to the complainant’s questions, i.e. that no other tenderer had asked similar questions and that this policy was in line with the principles of safeguarding a level playing field, is absurd.
Končno, opravičilo Komisije, zakaj ni odgovorila na pritožnikova vprašanja, tj. ker ni noben drug ponudnik zastavil podobnih vprašanj in ker je bil ta pristop v skladu z načeli zagotavljanja enakih konkurenčnih možnosti, je absurdno.
No advantage over other tenderers could possibly have resulted from clarifications being published.
Objava pojasnil ne bi pomenila nikakršne prednosti pred drugimi ponudniki.
All tenderers would have benefited equally from further explanations.
Vsem ponudnikom bi nadaljnja pojasnila enako koristila.
The FAQ website’s alleged unclearness and inconsistency with the tender specifications cations
Domnevna nejasnost spletne strani FAQ in nedoslednost v primerjavi z razpisnimi pogoji
1.1 The complaint concerns the Commission’s call for tenders for translation services (AO2003).
1.1 Pritožba se nanaša na javni razpis Komisij e za prevajalske storitve (AO2003).
The complainant alleges that the FAQ website, read together with the tender specifications, made it unclear whether certified information on subcontractors had to be submi ed.
Pritožnik trdi, da spletna stran FAQ skupaj z razpisnimi pogoji ni jasno določila, ali je potrebno predložiti overjene podatke o podizvajalcih.
It was also generally unclear which copies of supporting documents had to be certified, especially if copies of diplomas did not have to be certified. ed.
Dvoumno je bilo tudi, katere kopij e zahtevanih dokumentov je treba overiti, še posebej, ali je treba overiti tudi kopij e diplom.
1.2 The Commission argues that the tender specifications were unambiguous as regards the requirement of certified information and copies.
1.2 Komisij a meni, da so bili razpisni pogoji jasni, kar zadeva zahtevo po overjenih podatkih in kopijah.
Furthermore, the answer to the FAQ in question only confirmed what was already clear from the tender specifications.
Nadalje je odgovor na zadevno pogosto zastavljeno vprašanje zgolj potrdil že tako nedvoumne informacij e v razpisnih pogojih.
Consequently, copies of degrees and diplomas did not have to be certified, whereas, e.g. copies of evidence as required under paragraph 2.1.1. of the tender specifications had to be certified. ed.
Tako kopij diplom ni bilo treba overiti, medtem ko je bilo npr. kopij e dokazil, zahtevanih v odstavku 2.1.1. razpisnih pogojev, potrebno overiti.
Questions should be clear and concise and refer explicitly to the relevant point in the specification. They should be in English, French or German, and the replies will be posted on the website /.../ in these three languages. /.../”
1.3 Varuh poudarja, da morajo biti informacij e o dokumentih, ki jih je potrebno priložiti ponudbi, jasne in nedvoumne, še posebej, ker nepopolnih ponudb po preteku roka za oddajo največkrat ni mogoče dopolniti.
However, in view of the wording of the FAQ to which the information in question constituted an answer, the Ombudsman does not consider that the information on the FAQ website was unclear or inconsistent with the tender specifications.
Vendar pa Varuh na podlagi formulacije pogosto zastavljenega vprašanja, na katerega odgovarja zadevna informacij a, meni, da informacij a na spletni strani FAQ ni bila nejasna ali neskladna z razpisnimi pogoji.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission as regards this part of the complaint.
Varuh zato v zvezi s tem delom pritožbe ni ugotovil nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komisije. e.
The Commission’s alleged failure to answer the complainant’s questions
Domnevna opustitev odgovora Komisij e na pritožnikova vprašanja
Indeed, the language of section 1.12 of the tender specifications84 could reasonably lead tenderers to expect that the Commission would answer all questions meeting the criteria specified therein and that a level playing field would be safeguarded by publication of answers on the FAQ website.
Pritožnik trdi, da Komisij a ni odgovorila na njegova vprašanja o razpisnih pogojih.
Furthermore, as regards the interpretation of paragraph 2.1.1. of the tender specifications, the complainant appears to have asked the Commission whether a sworn statement would be sufficient to show that his company was not bankrupt.
2.2 Komisij a trdi, da ni ukrepala, ker je bilo mogoče vse odgovore na pritožnikova vprašanja najti v razpisnih pogojih, dodatne podrobnosti pa še na spletni strani FAQ.
The Ombudsman finds reasonable the Commission’s response to the complainant’s original question, i.e. that the answer could be found sufficiently easily in paragraph 2.1.1 and that to publish a new answer on the FAQ website was therefore unnecessary.
Komisij a trdi tudi, da ni noben drug ponudnik zastavil podobnih vprašanj in da je bil ta pristop v skladu s prednostjo načela zagotavljanja enakih konkurenčnih možnosti za vse ponudnike pred njeno zavezanostjo, da odgovarja na vse prošnje za informacije. e.
2.5 The complainant’s questions regarding details on subcontractors did not, however, only concern the possible requirement of certified copies of diplomas, which was the subject ma er of the answer on the FAQ website referred to by the Commission.
2.3 Varuh najprej poudarja, da njegove ugotovitve pod točko 1.3 zgoraj (tj. da določene informacij e v zvezi z zadevnim javnim razpisom, v specifičnem kontekstu, niso neskladne ali nejasne) ne pomenijo, da ne more obstajati legitimen razlog za prošnje potencialnih ponudnikov po dodatnih pojasnilih.
The complainant also asked, in summary, whether information on all possible translators/sub-contractors was needed, or if it was enough to explain the procedure used to select those translators.
Še več, besedilo oddelka 1.12 razpisnih pogojev84 lahko ponudnike navede k pričakovanju, da bo Komisij a odgovorila na vsa vprašanja, ki bodo upoštevala v tem oddelku
See footnote 83 above.
Glej zgornjo opombo.
2.6 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that, on the basis of section 1.12 of the tender specifications86, the complainant could reasonably have expected the Commission to publish answers to two of his questions on the FAQ website.
2.6 Zaradi zgoraj navedenega Varuh meni, da bi lahko pritožnik na podlagi oddelka 1.12 razpisnih pogojev86 upravičeno pričakoval, da bo Komisij a na spletni strani FAQ objavila odgovore na dve od njegovih vprašanj. Delovanje v skladu z upravičenimi pričakovanji na osnovi ravnanja
It is good administration to act in accordance with reasonable expectations created by the Institution’s conduct.87
Opustitev tovrstnih odgovorov in njihove objave s strani
The Commission’s failure to provide and publish such answers was therefore an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman will make a critical remark in this regard.
Komisij e je primer nepravilnosti, zato Varuh izreka kritično pripombo.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:
Na podlagi preiskave Varuha glede te pritožbe je treba podati naslednjo kritično pripombo:
On the basis of section 1.12 of the tender specifications, the complainant could reasonably have expected the Commission to publish answers to two of his questions on the FAQ website. It is good administration to act
Na podlagi oddelka 1.12 razpisnih pogojev bi pritožnik lahko upravičeno pričakoval, da bo Komisij a na spletni strani FAQ objavila odgovore na dve od njegovih vprašanj.
88 in accordance with reasonable expectations created by the Institution’s conduct.
Delovanje v skladu z upravičenimi pričakovanji na osnovi ravnanja institucij e spada pod dobro upravljanje88.
The Commission’s failure to provide and publish such answers was therefore an instance of maladministration.
Opustitev tovrstnih odgovorov in njihove objave s strani Komisij e je zato primer nepravilnosti.
Given that this aspect of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly se lement of the ma er.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se ta vidik pritožbe nanaša na postopke v zvezi z določenimi dogodki v preteklosti, ni primerno prizadevanje za prijateljsko poravnavo v tej zadevi.
On 14 and 22 May 2002, the complainant made a complaint to the European Ombudsman (ref.
Poslati je treba eno izvirno ponudbo, skupaj z izvirniki ali overjenimi kopijami.
The complainant had participated in the European Parliament’s competition PE/86/A for English language Assistant Administrators.
Dve kopij i naj bosta preprosto fotokopiji izvirne ponudbe, vključno s prilogami.
However, the complainant understood the le er to mean that he had passed the competition.
Overitev mora opraviti ustrezni pristojni organ, recimo odvetnik ali notar.
In January 2002, he therefore applied to ECOSOC for a post as an official.
Lastna overitev ni sprejemljiva.«
Article 10 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour adopted by the European Parliament in its resolution C5-0438/2000 of 6 September 2001 (available on the Ombudsman’s website: h p://www.euroombudsman.eu.int).
Člen 10 Evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja za javne uslužbence, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament v svoji resolucij i C50438/2000 z dne 6. septembra 2001 (na voljo na spletni strani Varuha: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).
Decisions following an inquiry
3.4.4 Ekonomsko-socialni odbor
Parliament’s competition and had not been placed on the reserve list.
Vendar je pritožnik pismo razumel, kot da je uspešno opravil izbirni postopek.
In May 2002, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman alleging that ECOSOC had unjustifiably suspended his recruitment procedure.
Zato se je januarja 2002 prijavil na ECOSOC za delovno mesto uradnika. Februarja 2002 mu je ECOSOC poslal ponudbo za zaposlitev in pritožnik je opravil zdravniški pregled.
On 16 December 2002, the Ombudsman closed his inquiry and came to the conclusion that there had been no maladministration by ECOSOC.
Varuh je 16. decembra 2002 zaključil preiskavo in ugotovil, da ni bilo nepravilnosti pri ravnanju ECOSOC-a.
As the complainant had made new allegations in his observations of 30 November 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he could submit a new complaint.
Ker je pritožnik v svojih pripombah z dne 30. novembra 2002 navedel nove trditve, ga je Varuh obvestil, da lahko vloži novo pritožbo.
On 30 April 2003, the complainant wrote back to the Ombudsman and made a new complaint, which can be summarised as follows:
Pritožnik je v pismu Varuhu z dne 30. aprila 2003 vložil novo pritožbo, ki se v povzetku glasi:
In its opinion on complaint 906/2002/OV, ECOSOC stated that the procedure for the recruitment of the complainant was initiated on the basis of “false information provided by the complainant”.
ECOSOC je v svojem mnenju o pritožbi 906/2002/OV navedel, da je bil postopek za zaposlitev pritožnika začet na podlagi “napačnih informacij , ki jih je navedel pritožnik”.
The provision of false information is a serious offence, as it implies the wilful withholding or altering of facts with a view to mislead.
Navedba napačnih informacij je resen prestopek, saj kaže na zavestno prikrivanje ali spreminjanje dejstev z namenom zavajanja.
The complainant considers that this allegation against him is unjustified, as he acted in good faith and voluntarily provided ECOSOC with all the relevant information in his possession.
Pritožnik meni, da so te trditve, usmerjene proti njemu, neupravičene, saj je ravnal v dobri veri in ECOSOC-u prostovoljno dal vse pomembne informacije, ki jih je imel.
Moreover, by making this allegation, ECOSOC has infringed Article 12 (“courtesy”) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
Nadalje je ECOSOC s to trditvijo kršil člen 12 (“vljudnost”) Evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev.
ECOSOC could have politely pointed out to the complainant that his actions were based on an unfortunate misunderstanding and could have apologised for its failure to identify this misunderstanding.
ECOSOC bi lahko pritožnika vljudno opozoril, da je njegovo ravnanje temeljilo na obžalovanja vrednem nesporazumu in se opravičil, ker ni odkril tega nesporazuma.
In summary, the complainant alleges that ECOSOC’s statement that he provided false information is unfounded and constitutes an act of maladministration.
Kratko, pritožnik torej trdi, da je izjava ECOSOC-a o navedbi napačnih informacij neutemeljena in je primer nepravilnosti.
He claims a full retraction, in writing, of the statement and an apology, also in writing, for having wrongfully called into question his personal honesty and integrity.
Zahteva popoln preklic te izjave v pisni obliki in opravičilo, tudi v pisni obliki, za neupravičen dvom v njegovo osebno poštenost in odkritost.
The Economic and Social Commi ee’s opinion
Mnenje Ekonomsko-socialnega odbora
ECOSOC firstly observed that, in his decision of 16 December 2002, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been no maladministration by ECOSOC, as the complainant had not been put on the reserve list.
ECOSOC je najprej pripomnil, da je Varuh v svojem sklepu z dne 16. decembra 2002 ugotovil, da pri ravnanju ECOSOC-a ni bilo nepravilnosti, saj pritožnik ni bil uvrščen na rezervni seznam.
ECOSOC then stated that there was no general inconsistency, or any slander or accusation to be read from the wording of the statements in its opinion in case 906/2002/OV.
ECOSOC je nadalje izjavil, da v besedilu stališč v njegovem mnenju o primeru 906/2002/OV ni najti nobene nedoslednosti na splošno niti obrekovanja ali obtožb.
These statements were in no way libellous.
Te izjave nikakor niso vsebovale klevetanj.
He played on the potential ambiguity of the concepts of “passing a competition” and “becoming a successful candidate”, and the persons responsible for his recruitment understood that he had been added to the reserve list.
Pritožnik je svojo celotno obrambno strategijo za obe pritožbi Varuhu človekovih pravic osnoval na možnosti podobnega pomena besednih zvez “opraviti izbirni postopek” in “postati uspešen
Decisions following an inquiry
Sklepi preiskav kandidat” za delovno mesto.
ECOSOC concluded that the complaint should therefore be declared inadmissible or, alternatively, rejected.
ECOSOC je zaključil, da bi morala biti zato pritožba označena za nedopustno ali pa zavrnjena.
The complainant maintained his complaint and made nine pages of observations which can be summarised as follows: He regre ed that ECOSOC did not show any intention to meet his request for a wri en retraction of the allegation that he provided false information and for a wri en apology.
Pritožnik je vztrajal pri svoji pritožbi in poslal devet strani pripomb, kjer v povzetku trdi naslednje: Obžaloval je, da ECOSOC ni pripravljen sprejeti njegove zahteve po pisnem preklicu trditve o navedbi napačnih informacijin po pisnem opravičilu.
He maintained his request and was open for a friendly solution.
Vztrajal je pri svoji pritožbi in izjavil, da bi sprejel sporazumno rešitev.
The complainant hoped that the Ombudsman would take note of the arrogance and disrespect shown by ECOSOC in further aggravating an already serious situation.
Pritožnik je izrazil upanje, da bo Varuh človekovih pravic opazil ošabnost in nespoštljivost ECOSOC-a, ki sta še poslabšali že tako resno situacijo. o.