natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Order of the Tribunal of 25 April 2006 in Case F-109/05 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep SDU z dne 25. aprila 2006 v zadevi Marcuccio proti Komisiji (F-109/05, še neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
Order of the Tribunal of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06 Gualtieri v Commission (under appeal, CaseT-413/06 P), not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep SDU z dne 9. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Gualtieri proti Komisiji (F-53/06 (pritožba T-413/06 P), še neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
Order of the Tribunal of 14 June 2006 in Case F-34/05 Lebedef and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep SDU z dne 14. junija 2006 v zadevi Lebedef in drugi proti Komisiji (F-34/05, še neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
Judgment of the Tribunal of 28 June 2006 in Case F-101/05 Grünheid v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 28. junija 2006 v zadevi Grünheid proti Komisiji (F-101/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Proceedings implied decision rejecting the complaint.
Sodišče za uslužbence kot tri mesece po tem, ko se je tožeča stranka v obvestilu o mesečni plači seznanila s to odločbo.
If it were the case that the adoption of an explicit decision rejecting a complaint within the time limit of four months of the lodging of the complaint precluded an implied decision even where it was not notied to the ocial concerned within that time limit, that ocial could not bring an action for annulment under the first sentence of the second indent of Article 91(3) of the Staff Regulations.
Glede tega je SDU presodilo, da je res, da začnejo z obvestilom o mesečni plači teči roki za pritožbo in vložitev tožbe zoper odločbo uprave, ker je na tem obrazcu jasno predstavljena ta odločba in njen obseg, vendar pa velja drugače za odločbo, s katero organ, pristojen za imenovanja (OPI), izvede dokončno razvrstitev na novo zaposlenega uradnika in katere obseg je veliko širši od določitve zgolj denarnih pravic, ki jih ima plačilni list namen konkretizirati za določeno obdobje.V primeru neobstoja obrazloženega pisnega obvestila o odločbi o dokončni razvrstitvi v skladu s členom 25 Kadrovskih predpisov bi bil z naložitvijo obveznosti zadevnemu uradniku, da vloži pritožbo najpozneje v treh mesecih po prejemu prvega plačilnega lista, ki zajema to razvrstitev, odvzet vsakršen pomen členoma 25, drugi pododstavek, in 26, drugi in tretji pododstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov, katerih namen je uradnikom omogočiti, da se dejansko seznanijo z odločbami, ki se nanašajo zlasti na njihov položaj v upravi, in da uveljavljajo svoje pravice, ki jim jih zagotavljajo navedeni predpisi.
Such a result would run counter to the purpose of that provision, which is intended to guarantee the judicial protection of ocials in the event of inertia or silence on the part of the administration.
Če bi bilo treba šteti, da je sprejetje zavrnilne odločbe v štirih mesecih od vložitve pritožbe ovira za zavrnitev z molkom, čeprav zadevni uradnik o zavrnilni odločbi ni bil obveščen v tem roku, ta ne bi mogel zahtevati razglasitve ničnosti na podlagi člena 91(3), druga alinea, prvi stavek, Kadrovskih predpisov.
Thus a decision rejecting a complaint which is adopted but not notied cannot constitute a ‘reply’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
Tako sprejeta zavrnilna odločba, o kateri zadevna oseba ni bila obveščena, ne sme biti„odgovor na pritožbo“ v smislu člena 90(2), drugi pododstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov.
In its order in Schmit v Commission 8, having first outlined the caselaw according to which, for the purposes of calculating the time limit for lodging a complaint against an act adversely aecting an ocial, Article 90 of the Staff Regulations must be interpreted as meaning that the complaint is ‘lodged’ when it is received by the institution, the Tribunal pointed out that, although the fact that an administration places a stamp on a document sent to it to register it does not amount to recording a denite date of lodging of the document, it is none the less a means, consistent with good administrative practice, of establishing a presumption, subject to proof to the contrary, that that document arrived on the date indicated.
SDU je v sklepu Schmit proti Komisiji8 – potem ko je spomnilo na sodno prakso, v skladu s katero je glede izračuna roka za vložitev pritožbe zoper akt, ki ima škodljive posledice za zadevno osebo, člen 90(2) Kadrovskih predpisov treba razlagati tako, da je navedena pritožba „vložena“, ko jo institucija prejme – navedlo, da dejstvo, da je uprava na dokument, ki ji je bil poslan, pritisnila žig o vpisu, ne omogoči, da bi veljalo, da je bil dokument vložen na določen dan, vendar pa je to dejstvo sredstvo dobrega delovanja sodnega organa, ki omogoči domnevo, dokler se ne dokaže nasprotno, da je uprava navedeni dokument prejela na označeni datum.
In the event of a dispute, it is for the ocial to adduce any evidence, such as an acknowledgement of receipt or advice of delivery of a letter sent by recorded delivery, liable to rebut the presumption created by the registration stamp, and thus establish that the complaint was actually lodged on a dierent date.
Če uradnik temu nasprotuje, mora predložiti dokaz, in sicer potrdilo uprave o prejemu ali povratnico priporočene pisemske pošiljke, ki lahko ovrže domnevo, ki jo je vzpostavil žig o vpisu, in dokaže, da je bila pritožba vložena na drug dan.
Order of the Tribunal of 15 May 2006 in Case F-3/05 Schmit v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Najprej je treba izpostaviti raznolikost vprašanj, o katerih je odločalo SDU.
Judgment of the Tribunal of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Tako je preizkusilo zlasti: kako je prehod na euro vplival na pokojninske pravice uradnikov v primeru, da so ti
Judgment of the Tribunal of 12 September 2006 in Case F-86/05 De Soeten v Council, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 19. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Combescot proti Komisiji (F-114/05 (pritožba T-414/06 P), še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Judgment of the Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 De Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep SDU z dne 15. maja 2006 v zadevi Schmit proti Komisiji (F-3/05, še neobjavljen v ZODl.).
Proceedings
Sodišče za uslužbence
Civil Service Tribunal establishing the working conditions and financial rules for conference interpeter staff 13.
Dejavnost v sistem Skupnosti prenesli pravice, ki so jih pridobili v nacionalnem pokojninskem sistemu9; merila, v skladu s katerimi se lahko nekateri uradniki na podlagi člena 9(2) Priloge
It is also worthy of note that a case concerning payment for overtime for a category A member of staff was assigned to the full Tribunal but was brought to a close by removal from the register following an agreement reached by the parties 14.
VIII h Kadrovskim predpisom predčasno upokojijo, ne da bi se jim znižala pokojnina10; primer, ko je bila odsotnost uradnika Komisije z dela zaradi bolezni predpisana po uradni
By its judgment in Landgren v ETF 21, delivered by the full Tribunal, the Tribunal held that unilateral termination of a contract of employment for an indenite period as a member of the temporary staff is not merely subject to observance of the notice requirement provided for by Article 47(2) of the Conditions of Employment, but must also contain a statement of reasons.
12; finančne dolžnosti iz psihiatričnih razlogov določbe konvencije o določitvi delovnih pogojev in ureditev plačila uslužbencev, ki so tolmači13.
Acknowledgement of such an obligation does not preclude the vesting of a wide disretion in the competent authority as regards dismissal and, therefore, the limitation of review by the Community court to verifying that there was no manifest error or misuse of powers.
Ravno tako je treba poudariti, da je bila zadeva o plačilu nadur uslužbencu kategorije A odstopljena občni seji, vendar je bila na podlagi sporazuma med strankama zaključena s sklepom o izbrisu14.
In this case, the decision to dismiss was annulled because it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
SDU je obravnavalo tudi: tožbo, s katero se je izpodbijala zakonitost odločb o odpovedi pogodb začasnim uslužbencem15; odločbe natečajne komisije, s katerimi je bil kandidatom zavrnjen pristop k preizkusom16 ali s katerimi je bil kandidatu zavrnjen vpis na čakalni seznam17, odločbe, izdane v okviru postopkov imenovanja18; karierna ocenjevalna poročila19in odločbe o nenapredovanju20.
Judgment of the Tribunal of 14 December 2006 in Case F-10/06 André v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
V tem okviru sta 2 sodbi SDU vredni posebne pozornosti.
Order of the Tribunal of 13 July 2006 in Case F-9/05 Lacombe v Council, not yet published in the ECR.
SDU je v sodbi Landgren proti ETF21, ki je bila razglašena na občni seji, odločilo, da za enostransko odpoved pogodbe za nedoločen čas začasnemu uslužbencu ne velja zgolj spoštovanje odpovednega roka iz člena 47(2) Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev, ampak je obvezna tudi njena obrazložitev.
See, inter alia, judgments of the Tribunal of 26 October 2006 in Case F-1/05 Landgren v ETF (under appeal, Case T-404/06 P), not yet published in the ECR, and of 14 December 2006 in Case F-88/05 Kubanski v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Da bi se zagotovilo zadostno varstvo pred neupravičenimi odpustitvami, zlasti v primeru pogodbe za nedoločen čas ali pogodbe za določen čas, če pride do odpovedi pred iztekom pogodbe, je treba na eni strani zadevnim osebam omogočiti, da preverijo, ali so bili spoštovani oziroma prizadeti njihovi legitimni interesi, in da presodijo o možnosti, da se obrnejo na sodnika, ter na drugi strani sodniku
Judgment of the Tribunal of 15 June 2006 in Case F-25/05 Mc Sweeney and Armstrong v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 15. junija 2006 v zadevi Mc Sweeney in Armstrong proti Komisiji (F-25/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Judgment of the Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05 Neophytou v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 13. decembra 2006 v zadevi Neophytou proti Komisiji (F-22/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Judgment of the Tribunal of 14 December 2006 in Case F-122/05 Economidis v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Economidis proti Komisiji (F-122/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
See, inter alia, judgment of the Tribunal of 14 December 2006 in Case F-74/05 Caldarone v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Glej zlasti sodbo SDU z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Caldarone proti Komisiji (F-74/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
See, for example, judgment of the Tribunal of 30 November 2006 in Case F-77/05 Balabanis and Le Dour v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Glej na primer sodbo SDU z dne 30. novembra 2006 v zadevi Balabanis in Le Dour proti Komisiji (F-77/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Judgment in Landgren v ETF, cited above.
Zgoraj navedena sodba Landgren proti ETF.
In its judgment in Economidis v Commission 22, the Tribunal held, on the subject of the recruitment of a Head of Unit in grade AD 9/AD12, that the Commission decision regarding middle management sta, insofar as it allows the level of the post to be filled to be fixed following a comparative review of candidatures and thus aects the required objectivity of the procedure, was unlawful.
V sodbi Economidis proti Komisiji22 je SDU glede zaposlitve vodje enote iz razreda AD 9/AD 12 odločilo, da je odločba Komisije o srednjih vodstvenih delavcih nezakonita, ker omogoča, da se raven prostega delovnega mesta določi po končani primerjavi kandidatur in tako vpliva na nepristranskost postopka, ki je potrebna.
Two applications for interim relief were made in 2006.
V letu 2006 sta bila vložena dva predloga za izdajo začasne odredbe.
In Bianchi v ETF 23, the application was dismissed on the ground that there was no urgency, whereas the application in was dismissed because the main action was prima facie clearly
V zadevi Bianchi proti ETF23 je bil predlog zavrnjen zaradi neobstoja nujnosti, medtem ko je bil v zadevi Dálnoky proti Komisiji24 predlog zavržen, ker je bila tožba v glavni stvari že na prvi pogled očitno nedopustna.
Applications for legal aid
Vloge za pravno pomoč
The President of the Tribunal ruled on three applications for legal aid during 2006, which were all made before an action was brought, as provided for by the first subparagraph of Article 95(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, applicable mutatis mutandis. Those applications were not granted 25.
Predsednik SDU je v letu 2006 odločil o 3 vlogah za pravno pomoč, ki so bile vse vložene pred vložitvijo tožbe, v skladu z možnostjo, ki je predvidena s členom 95(1), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje, ki velja mutatis mutandis.Te vloge niso bile sprejete25.
Judgment in Economidis v Commission, cited above.
Zgoraj navedena sodba Economidis proti Komisiji.
Order of the President of the Tribunal of 31 May 2006 in Case F-38/06 R Bianchi v ETF, not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep predsednika SDU z dne 31. maja 2006 v zadevi Bianchi proti ETF (F-38/06 R, še neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
Order of the President of the Tribunal of 14 December 2006 in Case F-120/06 R Dálnoky v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sklep predsednika SDU z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Dálnoky proti Komisiji (F-120/06 R, še neobjavljen v ZOdl.).
(Order of precedence as at 1 January 2006)
(Protokolarni vrstni red na dan 1. januarja 2006)
Born 1950; law graduate of the University of Wrocław (1972), doctorate in law (Łodz, 1982); lawyer at the Bar of the Republic of Poland (since 1977); visiting researcher (University of Paris X, 1987–88; University of Nantes, 1993–94); expert of ‘Solidarność’ (1995–2000); professor of labour law and European social law at the University of Łodz (1997–98 and 2001–05), associate professor at Warsaw School of Economics (2002), professor of labour law and social security law at Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Warsaw (2000–05); Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Aairs (1998–2001); member of the negotiation team for the accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union (1998–2001); representative of the Polish Government to the International Labour Organisation (1998–2001); author of a number of works on labour law and European social law; Judge at the Civil Service Tribunal since 6 October 2005.
Rojena l. 1950; diplomirana pravnica univerze v Wrocławu (1972), doktorica prava (Łodz, 1982); odvetnica v odvetniški zbornici Republike Poljske (od 1977); gostujoča raziskovalka (univerza Pariz X, 1987–1988; univerza v Nantesu, 1993–1994); strokovnjakinja „Solidarność“ (1995–2000); profesorica delovnega prava in evropskega socialnega prava na univerzi v Łodzu (1997–1998 in 2001–2005), profesorica na visoki trgovski šoli v Varšavi (2002), profesorica delovnega prava in socialne varnosti na univerzi Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski v Varšavi (2002–2005); podministrica za delo in socialne zadeve (1998–2001); članica odbora pogajalcev za pristop Republike Poljske k Evropski uniji (1998–2001); predstavnica poljske vlade pri Mednarodni organizaciji dela (1998– 2001); avtorica več del o delovnem pravu in evropskem socialnem pravu; sodnica SDU od 6. oktobra 2005.
Born 1956; graduate in law (Free University of Brussels, 1979); special diploma in international law (Brussels, 1980); Doctor of Laws (1989); Head of the Legal Service of the Société anonyme du canal et des installations maritimes (Canals and Maritime Installations company), Brussels (1979–84); ocial of the Commission of the European Communities (Directorate-General for Social Aairs, 1984–88); member of the Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communities (1988–94); Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1994–2005); lecturer at the University of Charleroi (international and European social law, 1989–91), at the University of Mons-Hainaut (European law, 1991–97), at the University of Liège (European civil service law, 1989–91; institutional law of the European Union, 1995–2005; European social law, 2004–05); numerous publications on the subject of European social law and constitutional law of the European Union; Judge at the Civil Service Tribunal since 6 October 2005.
Rojen 1956; diploma iz prava (svobodna univerza v Bruslju, 1979); posebna diploma iz mednarodnega prava (Bruselj, 1980); doktor prava (1989); pravna služba Société anonyme du canal et des installations maritimes v Bruslju (1979–1984); uradnik Komisije Evropskih skupnosti (Generalni direktorat za socialne zadeve, 1984–1988); član pravne službe Komisije Evropskih skupnosti (1988–1994); strokovni sodelavec na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti (1994–2005); predavatelj v univerzitetnem centru v Charleroiju (mednarodno in evropsko socialno pravo, 1989–1991), na univerzi v Mons–Hainaut (evropsko pravo, 1991–1997) in na univerzi v Liègu (pravo evropskih uslužbencev, 1989–1991; pravo institucij Evropske unije, 1995–2005; evropsko socialno pravo, 2004–2005); številne objave na področju evropskega socialnega prava in ustavnega prava Evropske unije; sodnik SDU od 6. oktobra 2005.
Born 1955; studied law in Regensburg and Geneva (1974–79); first State examination (1979); postgraduate studies in Community law at the College of Europe, Bruges (1979–80); trainee lawyer in Regensburg (1980–83); Doctor of Laws (1982); second State examination (1983); lawyer in Munich and Paris (1983–89); ocial at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (1990–2005); Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities (in the Chambers of Judge Jann, 1995–2005); teaching for a number of universities in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Russia; Honorary Professor at Saarland University (since 1999); member of various legal committees, associations and boards; numerous publications on Community law and Community procedural law; Registrar of the Civil Service Tribunal since 30 November 2005.
Rojena l. 1955; študij prava v Regensburgu in Ženevi (1974–1979); prvi državni izpit (1979); podiplomski študij prava Skupnosti na Collège d’Europe v Bruggeu (1979–1980); sodnica pripravnica v Regensburgu (1980–1983); doktorica prava (1982); drugi državni izpit (1983); odvetnica v Münchnu in Parizu (1983–1989); uradnica Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (1990–2005); strokovna sodelavka na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti (kabinet sodnika Janna, 1995–2005); poučevanje na več univerzah v Nemčiji, Avstriji, Švici in Rusiji; častna profesorica na univerzi v Posarju (od 1999); članica različnih pravnih odborov, združenj in komisij; številne objave na področju prava in sporov Skupnosti; sodna tajnica SDU od 30. novembra 2005.
C — Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Civil Service Tribunal
C – Sodne statistike SDU
General activity of the Civil Service Tribunal
Splošna dejavnost SDU
New cases, completed cases, cases pending (2005–06)
Vložene zadeve, zaključene zadeve, nerešene zadeve (2005–2006)
Percentage of the number of cases per principal defendant institution Language of the case Number of applicants (2005–06)
Število tožečih strank (2005–2006)
Outcome Judgments and orders — Bench hearing action
Sodbe in sklepi – sestava odločb
General activity of the Civil Service Tribunal —New cases, completed cases, cases pending (2005–06)
Splošna dejavnost Sodišča za uslužbence –Vložene zadeve, zaključene zadeve, nerešene zadeve (2005–2006)
The Tribunal was created by Council Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom of 2 November 2004 establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, p. 7).
Sodišče za uslužbence je bilo ustanovljeno s Sklepom Sveta 2004/752/ES, Euratom z dne 2. novembra 2004 o ustanovitvi Sodišča za uslužbence Evropske unije (UL L 333, str. 7).
Its judicial activity properly speaking began on 12 December 2005, the date of publication in the Ocial Journal of the European Union of the decision of the President of the Court of Justice recording that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal had been constituted in accordance with law (OJ L 325, 12.12.2005, p. 1).
Njegova sodna dejavnost se je začela 12. decembra 2005, ko je bil v Uradnem listu Evropske unije objavljen Sklep o ugotovitvi predsednika Sodišča, da je Sodišče za uslužbence Evropske unije ustanovljeno zakonito, z dne 2. decembra 2005 (UL L 325, str. 2).
At the end of 2005, 117 cases were transferred from the Court of First Instance to the Civil Service Tribunal and 13 cases were brought directly before the Tribunal.
Konec leta 2005 je Sodišče prve stopnje Sodišču za uslužbence odstopilo 117 zadev, 13 zadev pa je bilo slednjemu predloženih neposredno.
New cases — Percentage of the number of cases per principal defendant institution
Vložene zadeve – Odstotek števila zadev glavnih toženih institucij
Percentage of number of new cases
Odstotek števila vloženih zadev
Commission of the European Communities75 %
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti75,0 %
European Parliament7.1 %
Evropski parlament7,1 %
Council of the European Union6.1 %
Svet Evropske unije6,1 %
Court of Auditors of the European Communities1.8 %
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti3,6 %
Court of Justice of the European Communities3.6 %
Računsko sodišče Evropskih skupnosti1,8 %
Percentage of total staff per institution1
Odstotek skupnega števila zaposlenih na institucijo 1
Court of Auditors of the European Communities
Računsko sodišče Evropskih skupnosti
This percentage also includes cases brought against EPSO (European Personnel Selection Oce), attached at organisational level to the Commission, that is to say, cases brought by candidates challenging selection procedures.
Ta odstotek zajema tudi zadeve zoper EPSO (Evropski urad za izbor osebja, ki je organizacijsko priključen Komisiji), in sicer tožbe zoper kandidate v izbirnih postopkih.
Those persons are therefore not (yet) members of the institutions’ sta.
Gre torej za osebe, ki (še) niso del osebja institucij.
New cases — Language of the case
Vložene zadeve – Jezik postopka
Spanish0.7 %
Španščina0,7 %
Danish0.4 %
Danščina0,4 %
German2.2 %
Nemščina2,2 %
English4.7 %
Angleščina4,7 %
Language of the case
Jezik postopka
Number of cases
Število zadev
Spanish Danish German Greek English French Italian Hungarian Dutch Slovene Finnish
Španščina Danščina Nemščina Grščina Angleščina Francoščina Italijanščina Madžarščina Nizozemščina Slovenščina Finščina
The language of the case corresponds to the language in which the proceedings were brought and not to the applicant’s mother tongue or nationality.
Jezik postopka je jezik, v katerem je bila zadeva vložena, in ne materni jezik ali jezik državljanstva tožeče stranke.
New cases — Number of applicants — 2005–06
Vložene zadeve – Število tožečih strank – 2005–2006)
New cases with the greatest number of applicants in a single case
Vložene zadeve, v katerih je največje število tožečih strank v eni sami zadevi
Number of applicants per case1
Število tožečih strank na zadevo1
Staff Regulations — Pension — Application of the correction coecient calculated on the basis of the average cost of living in the country of residence
Kadrovski predpisi – Pokojnina – Uporaba korekcijskega količnika, izračunanega glede na povprečne življenjske stroške v državi stalnega prebivališča
Staff Regulations — Appointments — Candidates placed on a reserve list before the new Staff Regulations entered into force
Kadrovski predpisi – Imenovanja – Kandidati, ki so bili ob začetku veljavnosti novih kadrovskih predpisov vpisani na čakalni seznam
Staff Regulations — Promotion — Promotion year 2005 — Additional grades provided for by the new Staff Regulations
Kadrovski predpisi – Napredovanje – Napredovalno obdobje 2005 – Dodatni nazivi, določeni v novih kadrovskih predpisih
Staff Regulations — Contract staff — Review of classication and remuneration
Kadrovski predpisi – Pogodbeni uslužbenci – Revizija razvrstitve in plačila
Total number of applicants for all new cases
Skupno število tožečih strank za vse vložene zadeve
Total applicants2 403
Skupno število vloženih zadev
Total new cases278
Skupno število tožečih strank
Those applicants who have brought more than one action have been counted in respect of each action brought.
Pri številu tožečih strank so bile tožeče stranke, ki so vložile več tožb, upoštevane pri vsaki vloženi tožbi.