natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Eventually, the issue was presented to the Board of Governors through a wri4 en procedure, the outcome of which was still unclear at the time of the Ombudsman’s final assessment of the case.
Naposled je bila zadeva v pisnem postopku predstavljena svetu guvernerjev Evropskih šol, rezultat pa medtem ko je varuh človekov pravic pripravljal končno oceno primera, še ni bil znan.
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 943/2006/MHZ zoper Evropsko komisijo o
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
LETNO POROČILO 2007 in Vietnama5
However, since the complainant’s problem had still not been resolved, the Ombudsman decided to inform the new Secretary-General of the European Schools and the German government of the case.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdil, da (i) Komisija pritožniku ni zagotovila pravice do obrambe in je kršila načelo učinkovitega upravljanja, saj mu ni razkrila svojih ugotovitev pred formalnim sprejetjem začasnih ukrepov in ni sprejela njegovega zahtevka z dne 13. marca 2006, da bi podal pripombe; (ii) je Komisija kršila načelo sorazmernosti (pritožnik je trdil, da Komisija ni upoštevala „poštenega ravnovesja“ interesov, na eni strani potrošnikov in tistih družb, za katere so bile uvedene protidampinške dajatve, in na drugi strani tistih družb, za katere se dajatve ne uporabljajo); (iii) je Komisija svojo odločbo utemeljila na napačnih informacijah (pritožnik se je skliceval na informacije, objavljene na spletni strani Komisije) in je kot referenčno državo napačno izbrala Brazilijo, in (iv) Komisija ni delovala pregledno, saj ni razkrila identitete proizvajalcev EU, ki so se pritožili, in proizvajalcev EU, pri katerih je vzela vzorce.
Summary of decision on complaint 943/2006/MHZ against the European Commission
Pritožnik je svoje obtožbe in trditve utemeljil v pripombah.
The complainant was an interested party in the Commission’s investigation leading to the adoption of anti-dumping provisional measures on imports of certain footwear with leather uppers originating from China and Vietnam5.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju poudarila, da v skladu z osnovno Uredbo o protidampingu6 ni dolžna razkriti svojih ugotovitev pred sprejetjem začasnih ukrepov.
Before the relevant regulation was adopted, the Commission published on its website information concerning the anti-dumping measures in question, and the complainant thereupon asked the Commission for a disclosure of its findings and for the opportunity to present its views.
Komisija je zanikala, da bi bila kakor koli kršena pritožnikova pravica do obrambe, ter kakršno koli napako ali nepreglednost.
Its requests were refused.
Sklicevala se je na svojo navedbo razlogov v Uredbi (ES) 553/2006.
The complainant claimed that the Commission should withdraw its Regulation imposing provisional anti-dumping measures on certain leather footwear from China and Vietnam, and that the provisional anti-dumping duties which had already been collected should be released.
Poudaril je, da se je pritožba nanašala na začasne ukrepe, ki imajo poseben značaj in jih je mogoče pozneje spremeniti. Opozoril je tudi na omejenost pregledov varuha človekovih pravic pri primerih, ki zadevajo zapletena gospodarska vprašanja.
In its observations, the complainant maintained its allegations and claims.
Varuh človekovih pravic je pri sprejemanju odločbe upošteval zeleno knjigo Komisije,7 ki je bila medtem poslana v javno razpravo in obravnava vprašanje, ki ga je izpostavil pritožnik.
, it was not required to disclose its findings before the provisional measures had been taken.
Pritožnika, ki je nemški državljan, je nemško sodišče leta 1997 obsodilo zaradi nezakonitega posedovanja orožja.
The Commission denied any infringement of the complainant’s right of defence and any errors or lack of transparency.
Izvršitev kazni je bila odložena. Leta 1998 pa je pritožnika italijansko sodišče v odsotnosti obtožilo na 16 let zapora.
It referred to its statement of reasons in Regulation (EC) 553/2006.
Leta 2002 je bil aretiran na podlagi mednarodnega sodnega naloga za aretacijo in je vse od takrat v zaporu.
The Ombudsman did not find any instance of maladministration.
Trdil je, da je italijansko sodišče kršilo načelo ne bis in idem, ki prepoveduje, da bi se sodni postopek začel dvakrat na isti pravni podlagi.
He underlined that the complaint concerned the provisional measures which have a specific character and may be changed a erwards.
Kot edini način za ukrepanje je predlagala, da se v skladu s členom 35(7) Pogodbe ES predloži spor Evropskemu sodišču v zvezi z razlago sporazuma, na primer Konvencije o izvajanju Schengenskega sporazuma, ki določa načelo ne bis in idem na evropski ravni.
He also pointed out the limited character of the Ombudsman’s review in cases concerning complex economic ma4 ers.
Ker pa so nekatere informacij e manjkale, je Komisija odvetniku svetovala, naj zadevo še naprej obravnava na nacionalni ravni.
In reaching his decision, the Ombudsman took into consideration the Commission’s Green Paper7 submi4 ed for public consultation in the meantime and reflecting the issue raised by the complainant.
Leta 2005 je Komisija po negativnem sklepu italijanskega pritožbenega sodišča dokončno sklenila, da ni zadostne podlage, da bi ukrepala.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006, OJ 2006 L 98, p. 3.
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 553/2006, UL 2006 L 98, str. 3.
Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004.
Uredba Sveta (ES) 384/96, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) 461/2004.
Alleged failure to act in a criminal ma4 er
Dodal je tudi, da je upošteval nasvet Komisije samo zato, da bi ji zagotovil podlago za ukrepanje.
Summary of decision on complaint 1166/2006/WP against the European Commission
Ker Komisija nato ni ukrepala, je zaman potrošil denar za pravno pomoč zagovornika.
The complainant, a German citizen, was convicted of illegal possession of arms by a German court in 1997.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju pojasnila, da je navedla člen 35(7) Pogodbe ES, ker je italijansko sodišče leta 1998 menilo, da se načelo ne bis in idem v Italiji ne uporablja.
However, in 1998, the complainant was sentenced, in absentia, to 16 years in prison by an Italian court.
Zato ni nič kazalo na splošno nestrinjanje med Komisijo in Italijo.
In 2002, he was arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant and has been imprisoned since that time.
Komisija je poudarila, da ni obljubila, da bo ukrepala zoper Italijo v primeru negativnega sklepa italijanskega pritožbenega sodišča in da takšen negativen sklep ne pomeni, da njen nasvet ni bil pravilen in v interesu pritožnika.
However, it explained that it was not competent to review the decisions of prosecution authorities and that there was no possibility of conducting infringement proceedings against a Member State in criminal ma4 ers.
Pripomnil je, da je besedilo v pismih Komisije izredno previdno.
The only way in which it could possibly act would be to submit, under Article 35(7) of the EU Treaty, a dispute to the European Court of Justice concerning the interpretation of an agreement, for example the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, which laid down the ne bis in idem principle at European level.
Komisija se ni zavezala, da bo ukrepala, temveč napovedala, da bo proučila nadaljnje možne korake, potem ko bo dobila dodatne informacije.
However, since certain information was missing, the Commission advised the lawyer that he should pursue the ma4 er further at national level.
Poleg tega se zdi argument Komisije, da preneha z obravnavo zadeve, ker italijanska sodišča zdaj na splošno sprejemajo uporabo načela ne bis in idem, razumen.
In 2005, and a er a negative decision of an Italian appeals court, the Commission finally concluded that there were not su cient reasons for it to act.
Zato je varuh človekovih pravic primer zaključil z ugotovitvijo, da ni bilo nepravilnosti.
He added that he had followed the Commission’s advice only in order to give it a basis on which to act.
Domnevno neposredovanje odgovora na prošnjo turško-ciprske univerze
Since the Commission had then failed to act, it had made him waste money on his legal representation.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2280/2006/MF zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In its opinion, the Commission explained that it had mentioned Article 35(7) of the EU Treaty because the Italian court had held in 1998 that the ne bis in idem principle was not applicable in Italy.
Pritožnik je rektor na Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), turško-ciprski izobraževalni ustanovi, ki leži na severnem delu Cipra.
However, this statement had not been upheld by later decisions of the Italian courts.
Oktobra 2004 je EMU Komisijo zaprosil za univerzitetno listino Erasmus (Erasmus University Charter – EUC).
Therefore, there was no sign of a general disagreement between the Commission and Italy.
Prvi pogoj za pridobitev EUC je, da mora „nacionalni organ za izobraževanje“ potrditi status EMU kot visokošolske ustanove.
The Commission emphasised that it had not promised to take action against Italy in the case of a negative decision of the Italian appeals court and that such a negative decision did not imply that its advice was not correct and not in the complainant’s interest.
Pritožnik je navedel, da je ciprsko Ministrstvo za izobraževanje zavrnilo potrditev statusa EMU kot visokošolske ustanove.
The Ombudsman recalled that the area of EU law concerning judicial cooperation in criminal ma4 ers is still mainly decided through intergovernmental procedures, so that the Commission’s possibilities of taking action are rather limited. He noted that the wording of the Commission’s le4 ers was extremely cautious.
Pritožnik je v pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdil, da Komisija ni v razumnem roku zagotovila odgovora na prošnjo EMU za EUC ter da ni predstavila razlage za to nepotrebno zamudo.
The Commission did not commit itself to taking action but announced that it would consider further possible steps a er additional information had been obtained.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da je razlog za njeno domnevno nezagotovitev hitrega in uradnega odgovora na prošnjo EMU dejstvo, da pristojni organ ni potrdil, da je EMU ustrezna ustanova.
Furthermore, the Commission’s argument for not pursuing the ma4 er further, namely, that the Italian courts now generally accepted the application of the ne bis in idem principle, appeared to be reasonable.
Komisija je 12. maja 2005 poslala dopis EMU, v katerem je uradno potrdila, da prošnji za EUC ni ugodila, ker ga pristojni nacionalni organ ni potrdil kot ustrezne ustanove za sodelovanje v programu Socrates/Erasmus.
Therefore, the Ombudsman closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da obdobje, ki je preteklo od takrat, ko je EMU vložil prošnjo, do takrat, ko je Komisija odgovorila z dopisom z dne 12. maja 2005, ni nastalo zaradi zamude, za katero bi bila kriva Komisija, temveč je to očitno mogoče pripisati dejstvu, da se EMU ni želel prijaviti na Ministrstvu za izobraževanje v Nikoziji za status visokošolske ustanove.
Alleged failure to reply to an application from a Turkish Cypriot University
Vprašanje upravičenosti je sprožilo občutljiva vprašanja zaradi političnih razmer na Cipru.
Summary of decision on complaint 2280/2006/MF against the European Commission
Komisija ne more biti odgovorna za zamude, ki so neposredna posledica teh političnih razmer.
The complainant is the rector of the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU), a Turkish Cypriot educational institution located in the northern part of Cyprus.
Poleg tega je Komisija očitno redno obveščala pritožnika o ustreznih ukrepih za potrditev upravičenosti prošnje EMU.
In October 2004, the EMU applied to the Commission for an Erasmus University Charter (EUC).
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da Komisija ni dolžna zagotoviti kakršne koli podrobne razlage v zvezi z ravnanjem drugih strani.
A precondition for receiving an EUC was that the “national authority for education” should confirm the status of the EMU as an institution of higher education.
Varuh je tudi pohvalil Komisijo, ki je očitno našla praktično alternativno rešitev, da bi pomagala študentom in učiteljem na Severnem Cipru, saj jim je ponudila priložnosti, podobne tistim, ki izhajajo iz EUC.
According to the complainant, the Cyprus Ministry of Education refused to give the EMU the status of an institution of higher education.
Varuh zato v zvezi s pritožnikovimi trditvami ni ugotovil nobene nepravilnosti na strani Komisije. e.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to provide a reply to the EMU’s application for the EUC within a reasonable period of time and to provide an explanation for this avoidable delay.
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2403/2006/(WP)BEH (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the reason for its alleged failure to provide a prompt and formal reply to the EMU’s application was the absence of confirmation by the relevant authority that the EMU was an eligible institution.
Pritožnik je poročal o domnevno nepravilnih informacijah na spletnih straneh Generalnega direktorata Komisije za podjetništvo in industrijo. Naslov zadevne strani je „Varovanje vaših zamisli“ (Protecting your ideas).
On 12 May 2005, the Commission sent a le4 er to the EMU formally confirming that its application for a EUC had not been successful because it had not been recognised by the relevant national authority as eligible to participate in the Socrates/Erasmus programme.
V nemški različici spletne strani je navedeno, da bo Komisija ukrepala proti „Diebstahl von geistigem Eigentum“, kar dobesedno pomeni „kraja intelektualne lastnine“.
The Ombudsman considered that the period of time which elapsed between the EMU’s application and the Commission’s reply of 12 May 2005 was not due to delays which could be a4 ributed to the Commission, but rather appeared to be due to the fact that the EMU refused to apply to the Ministry of Education in Nicosia for the status of an institution of higher education.
V zvezi s tem je pritožnik trdil, da „zamisli“ ne morejo biti zavarovane s pravicami intelektualne lastnine, ker je taka zaščita izključno namenjena izumom in stvaritvam, ki temeljijo na zamislih, in da se pojem „kraje“ ne more uporabiti za pravice intelektualne lastnine.
This issue of eligibility raised sensitive questions due to the political situation in Cyprus.
Ker bi se zato obe izjavi Komisije morali obravnavati kot nepravilni, je pritožnik zaprosil Komisijo, da ju izbriše, da ne bi zavajali ciljnega občinstva.
Furthermore, the Commission appeared to have regularly informed the complainant of the relevant steps taken to confirm the eligibility of the EMU’s application.
Komisija je tudi navedla, da je prejela zelo pozitiven odziv od poslovnih organizacij , ki so svojim članom omogočile dostop do informativnega paketa.
The Ombudsman further considered that it was not for the Commission to provide any detailed explanation as regards the behaviour of parties other than the Commission.
Ugotovila je, da informacije, predstavljene na spletni strani, izpolnjujejo cilj obveščati splošno javnost v jasni in razumljivi obliki.
The Ombudsman also applauded the fact that the Commission appeared to have found an alternative practical solution which would help students and teachers in Northern Cyprus, by a � ording them opportunities which were similar to those resulting from the EUC.
Varuh človekovih pravic je poudaril, da mora biti vsebina, ki jo Komisija objavlja na svojih spletnih straneh, pravilna in točna, da bi se izognili zavajajočim informacijam. Poudaril je tudi, da to ne pomeni, da Komisija ne sme poenostaviti vsebine na svoji spletni strani, zato da bi bile informacij e čim bolj dostopne ciljnemu občinstvu.
The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission as regards the complainant’s allegation.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da to stališče potrjuje praksa mednarodnih organizacij .
Allegedly inaccurate information on the Commission’s website
Domnevno netočne in obrekljive obtožbe proti Greenpeaceu
Summary of decision on complaint 2403/2006/(WP)BEH (Confidential) against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2740/2006/TN zoper Evropsko komisijo o
In this regard, the complainant alleged that “ideas” could not be protected by intellectual property rights, since such protection was reserved for inventions and works based on ideas, and that the notion of “the ” could not be applied to intellectual property rights.
(Strupeni lobi – kako kemična industrija poskuša uničiti REACH) so omenjena „vrtljiva vrata“ med Komisijo in lobistično kemično industrijo. V poročilu je ta izraz opredeljen kot taktika, s katero uradniki Evropskih skupnosti in industrijski lobisti „med seboj trgujejo z delovnimi mesti“.
Since both Commission statements would therefore have to be considered to be wrong, the complainant asked the Commission to remove them, in order to avoid misleading the target audience.
Domnevna dejanja je podprl z informacijami o delovnih odnosih nekaterih oseb v Komisiji in kemični industriji. i.
In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the relevant information on its website formed part of an information package whose aim was to provide information on complex issues, such as the protection of intellectual property rights, to journalists but also to the general public, in clear and understandable language.
Predstavnik Komisije za stike z javnostmi je kasneje v odgovor na povezana vprašanja medijev pripomnil, da „Kar zadeva … posebej omenjene posameznike, dva izmed njih nikoli nista dejansko delala na projektu REACH.
It explained that the language it had used was in accordance with the language and concepts used by other international organisations.
Zato ne razumem, kako lahko nekdo sploh poskuša izmisliti trditev o vrtljivih vratih in neprimernem obnašanju. (...)
It concluded that the information provided on the website fulfilled the objective of providing information to the general public in a clear and understandable format.
Te trditve se mi zdijo popolnoma neutemeljene, nepoštene in osnovane na površni raziskavi.“ Greenpeace se je pritožil varuhu človekovih pravic,
The Ombudsman pointed out that, in the interest of avoiding misleading information, the content provided by the Commission on its websites must be correct and accurate.
REACH je nova evropska uredba o kemikalijah (Uredba 1907/2006, UL 2006 L 396, str.
At the same time, he
1) in pomeni „registracija, evalvacija, avtorizacija kemikalij“. “.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS underlined that this did not prevent the Commission from simplifying content, on its website, with a view to making the information contained in it as accessible as possible for the target audience.
Predvsem je poudaril, da bi se izraz „vrtljiva vrata“ v kontekstu, v kakršnem je predstavljen v poročilu,9 lahko upravičeno razumel kot dvom v neoporečnost zadevnih oseb in pravilno opravljanje njihovih dolžnosti, ki so določene v kadrovskih predpisih.
He concluded that, while arguably not fully satisfactory from an academic point of view, the simple and accessible terms conveyed, to a layperson, a basic notion of what intellectual property entailed.
Take obtožbe v poročilu niso ustrezno utemeljene, zaradi česar je mogoče razumno pričakovati tako buren odziv predstavnika Komisije za stike z javnostmi.
Given that the website did not purport to give a complete and sophisticated explanation of intellectual property rights, the expressions used were su ciently clear.
Čeprav varuh ni ugotovil nobenega primera nepravilnosti, ki bi ustrezal raziskanim pritožnikovim trditvam, je poudaril pomen preglednosti v zvezi z dejavnostmi lobiranja, ki se izvajajo med zakonodajnimi postopki.
The Ombudsman found that this view was confirmed by the practice of international organisations.
Varuh je priznal pomen, ki ga Komisija pripisuje temu vprašanju v svoji trenutni pobudi za večjo odprtost,10ki priznava, da je lobiranje povezano tudi z obnašanjem trenutnih in nekdanjih uradnikov in agentov Evropske unije ter da gre za vprašanje, ki se izrecno obravnava v določbah kadrovskih predpisov.
On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration corresponding to the complainant’s allegation.
Varuh je poudaril, da je pravilno in dosledno izvajanje teh določb nujno za zagotovitev doseganja visokih standardov preglednosti, ki po mnenju Evropske unije tvorijo del legitimnosti vsake sodobne uprave.
Allegation about inaccurate and defamatory accusations against Greenpeace
Zavrnitev dostopa javnosti do finančne pogodbe
Summary of decision on complaint 2740/2006/TN against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 948/2006/BU zoper Evropsko investicijsko banko (EIB)
A Greenpeace report entitled Toxic Lobby, How the Chemicals Industry is trying to kill REACH8 referred to ”revolving doors” between the Commission and the lobbying chemical industry.
Nevladna organizacij a je EIB zaprosila za dostop do finančne pogodbe v zvezi s projektom modernizacije železniškega sistema na Slovaškem.
The report defined this term as the tactic under which EC o cials and industry lobbyists were “trading working places among themselves”.
EIB je prošnjo zavrnila, sklicujoč se na izjemo v svojih pravilih o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov, ki omenja obveznost varovanja poslovne tajnosti ter poslovne etike, pravil in praks, ki veljajo v bančništvu in finančnem sektorju.
It illustrated the alleged practice by providing information on the working relationships of certain persons with the Commission and the chemical industry.
Hkrati pa je EIB obvestila pritožnika, da ne bi ugovarjala, če bi finančno pogodbo razkril posojilojemalec ali slovaška vlada.
A Commission spokesperson subsequently commented, in response to relevant questions put to him by the media, that “Regarding the ... individuals singled out, two of them have never actually worked on REACH.
V pritožbi, ki jo je pritožnik naslovil na varuha človekovih pravic, je ta trdil, da s prenosom odgovornosti za razkritje na oblasti države članice EIB diskriminira državljane, ki ne govorijo jezika zadevne države članice.
So it is a mystery to me how one can possibly try to construct a claim of revolving doors, improper behaviour. (...) I u4 erly find these allegations unfounded, unfair and based on sloppy research”.
Pritožba se je tudi sklicevala na Aarhuško konvencijo, ki zagotavlja posameznikom pravico do dostopa do informacij v okoljskih zadevah.
The Ombudsman concluded that this allegation had not been substantiated.
V svojem mnenju o pritožbi EIB trdi, da mora kot banka zagotavljati medsebojno zaupanje med partnerji, ki imajo legitimno pravico pričakovati, da bo banka delovala v ustaljenih pravnih okvirih in ne bo razkrila podatkov, ki so zaščiteni z obveznostjo varovanja bančne zaupnosti.
He noted, in particular, that, viewed in the context in which it was presented in the report9, the term “revolving doors” could reasonably be considered as calling into question the integrity of the persons concerned and the proper discharge of the duties imposed on them by the Sta� Regulations.
Pri tem se je EIB sklicevala na svoja pravila o dostopu javnosti, ki jih je posodabljala od 28. marca 2006 na podlagi svoje politike o javnih razkritjih.
Such accusations were not duly substantiated in the report, which could reasonably explain why the spokesperson reacted strongly.
Tako stara kot tudi nova pravila določajo izjemo za informacije, ki spadajo pod obveznost varovanja poslovne tajnosti Nova pravila še dodatno potrjujejo to stališče z izrecno navedbo nerazkrivanja finančnih pogodb.
Regulations. The Ombudsman emphasised that the correct and thorough implementation of these provisions is essential to guarantee the achievement of the high standards of transparency that the EU considers are part of the legitimacy of any modern administration.
Glede dokumentov, ki pa niso na voljo v vseh uradnih jezikih Evropske unije, je priporočila, naj se v primerih, ko za neki dokument obstaja širši interes, razmisli o prevodu.