natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
REACH is the new European chemicals regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, OJ 2006 L 396, p.
Odločba varuha človekovih pravic je priznala dvojno vlogo EIB kot bančne institucije, ki deluje na finančnih trgih, in organa Skupnosti.
1) and stands for ”Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals”.
Varuh človekovih pravic je menil, da je EIB imela pravico zavrniti dostop na podlagi svojih starih pravil, ki so bila takrat veljavna. Varuh človekovih pravic je
More information on this ”European Transparency Initiative” is available on h4 p://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/transparency_en.htm
Več informacijo tej „Pobudi za preglednost v Evropi“ je na voljo na htt p://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/kallas/transparency_en.htm
ANNUAL REPORT 2007
junij a 2007, zato ni bila v veljavi v času pritožnikove zahteve.
Refusal to provide public access to a finance contract
Domnevna neskladnost prometnega projekta, ki ga financira Evropska investicijska banka, z nacionalno okoljsko zakonodajo
Summary of decision on complaint 948/2006/BU against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1779/2006/MHZ zoper Evropsko investicijsko banko (EIB)
An NGO applied to the EIB for access to a finance contract concerning a railway modernisation project in Slovakia.
Poljska okoljevarstvena nevladna organizacij a se je pritožila, da je EIB sofinancirala projekt „Posodobitev poljskih cest“, čeprav ni bila opravljena nobena strateška presoja vplivov na okolje, kot to določa poljska okoljska zakonodaja.
In rejecting the application, the EIB relied on an exception in its rules on public access to documents which mentioned the obligation of professional secrecy and professional ethics, rules and practices applicable in the banking and financial sector.
Pritožnik je trdil, da je EIB zato ravnala v nasprotju z lastno „okoljsko izjavo“, v skladu s katero EIB zagotavlja, da je projekt, ki ga financira, skladen z načeli in standardi, določenimi v okoljski zakonodaji Evropske unije in držav članic.
The EIB informed the complainant, however, that it would have no objection to the disclosure of the finance contract by the borrower, or the Slovak Government.
Pritožnik je navedel tudi, da mu EIB ni sporočila odgovora poljskih organov oblasti, na katere se je EIB obrnila v zvezi s pritožnikovo pritožbo.
The complainant also referred to the Aarhus Convention, which provides for an individual right of access to environmental information.
Pritožnik je trdil, da bi morala EIB začasno ukiniti financiranje, dokler ne bi bil razjasnjen pravni status projekta.
In its opinion on the complaint, the EIB argued that, as a bank, it must ensure mutual trust with its counterparts, which have the legitimate right to expect that it will act within the established legal framework and will not divulge information protected by the obligation of banking confidentiality.
EIB je v svojem mnenju navedla, da so poljski organi oblasti (i) v celoti odgovorni za zagotavljanje skladnosti z ustrezno nacionalno zakonodajo in da so banko, potem ko se je ta obrnila nanje, (ii) obvestili, da ustrezna poljska zakonodaja ne zahteva strateške presoje vplivov na okolje za ta projekt.
In this regard, the EIB referred to its rules on public access, which had been updated from 28 March 2006 as part of its public disclosure policy.
Poleg tega je v tem času pritožniku sporočila sklepe poljskih organov oblasti.
The Ombudsman’s decision recognized the EIB’s dual role as both a banking institution operating in the financial markets and a Community body.
Po mnenju varuha človekovih pravic lahko EIB (i) zakonito meni, da so poljski organi oblasti izpolnili veljavne zakonske določbe, in (ii) pričakuje, da ji bodo poljski organi oblasti zagotovili zanesljive informacij e v zvezi z uporabo teh določb na njihovi strani. Varuh se je strinjal z razlogi, da se je EIB zanesla na informacije, ki so ji jih predložili navedeni organi oblasti ob podpisu posojila.
As regards the Aarhus Convention, the Ombudsman noted that Regulation 1367/200611 is binding on the EIB, but that it has been applicable only since 28 June 2007.
Nadalje je varuh ugotovil, da je EIB v tem času pritožniku sporočila sklepe poljskih organov oblasti ter da v zvezi s tem ni potrebna nadaljnja preiskava.
Thus it did not apply at the time of the complainant’s request.
Varuh je prišel do enakih ugotovitev v zvezi s pritožnikovo trditvijo, glede na to, da je EIB očitno že izvedla ustrezno plačilo.
As regards the possible problem of languages which citizens might encounter in addressing requests to national authorities, the Ombudsman made a further remark encouraging the EIB to consider contacting the national authorities in the future, in order to ascertain the possibility of total or, at least, partial disclosure of the finance contracts to which citizens request that it grant them public access.
Varuh človekovih pravic se je skliceval tudi na ugotovitve poljskega varuha človekovih pravic, kateremu je pritožnik predložil vzporedno pritožbo zoper poljske organe oblasti.
The EIB could, in this way, usefully contribute to mitigating language problems that some citizens may encounter in addressing the corresponding requests for public access to the authorities of the Member State concerned.
V zvezi s tem je pripravil tudi dodatno pripombo, da bi morala EIB v prihodnosti razmisliti o ustanovitvi komunikacijskih kanalov za komuniciranje in pridobivanje informacij od ustreznih nacionalnih in regionalnih organov nadzora, kot so varuhi človekovih pravic, ki bi lahko bili dodatni viri informacij v zvezi s skladnostjo projektov, ki jih financira banka, z nacionalno in evropsko zakonodajo.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Ma4 ers to Community institutions and bodies, OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1367/2006 z dne 6. septembra 2006 o uporabi določb Aarhuške konvencije o dostopu do informacij , udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah v institucijah in organih Skupnosti, UL 2006 L 264, str. 13.
SUMMARIES OF DECISIONS
Evropska agencij a za zdravila
Alleged lack of compliance with national environmental law of a transport project financed by the European Investment Bank
Domnevno pomanjkanje informacij v zvezi z zdravili za zdravljenje depresije e
Summary of decision on complaint 1779/2006/MHZ against the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 2370/2005/OV zoper Evropsko agencij o za zdravila (EMEA)
A Polish environmental NGO complained that the EIB had co-financed the Project “Poland Road Modernisation” although no strategic environmental impact assessment of the Project had been carried out, as required by Polish environmental law.
Pritožničin mož je storil samomor, čeprav je jemal zdravilo za zdravljenje depresije Seroxat/Paroxetine.
According to the complainant, the EIB thus acted contrary to its own “Environmental Statement”, according to which the EIB ensures that projects it finances comply with the principles and standards set by both EU and national environmental legislation.
Po moževi smrti je pritožnica stopila v stik z Evropsko agencij o za zdravila ter se pozanimala glede varnosti jemanja omenjenega zdravila in tveganja za samomor. Med drugim je pritožnica zahtevala informacij e o znanstvenemu mnenju agencij e EMEA glede zdravila.
The complainant also alleged that the EIB failed to inform it about the answer of the Polish authorities which were contacted by the EIB in connection with the complainant’s complaint.
Vendar pa na nekaj e-poštnih sporočil sploh ni prejela odgovora. Poleg tega je pritožnica menila, da so bili odgovori, ki jih je agencij a le poslala, nezadovoljivi.
The complainant claimed that the EIB should suspend its financing until the legal status of the Project had been clarified. ed.
V pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic je pritožnica očitala: pomanjkanje preglednosti in informacij agencij e glede njenih zahtev; nepotrebno odlašanje, da agencij a ni obravnavala zadeve s stališča varnosti zdravila in tveganja za samomor; in neukrepanje agencij e v zvezi z navedbami pritožnice.
In its opinion, the EIB stated that the Polish authorities (i) had full responsibility for ensuring compliance with the relevant national legislation and that, a er having been contacted by the Bank, (ii) informed it that the relevant Polish law did not require a strategic environmental impact assessment for the Project.
Agencij a je izdala mnenje, v katerem trdi, da na določena e-poštna sporočila, ki jih je posredovala pritožnica, ni odgovorila zato, ker se je vsebina ponavljala in je bila nesmiselna.
Furthermore, in the meantime, it had informed the complainant about the conclusions of the Polish authorities.
Prav tako je navedla, da je v drugih primerih pritožnici posredovala vse potrebne informacije. e.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the EIB could (i) legitimately consider that the Polish authorities complied with the applicable legal provisions, and (ii) legitimately expect that the same Polish authorities would provide it with reliable information concerning the application of those provisions on their part.
Po skrbnem pregledu omenjenega dopisovanja je varuh človekovih pravic sklenil, da agencij a ni odgovorila na tri vprašanja, ki jih je izpostavila pritožnica.
Therefore, the Ombudsman accepted the EIB’s reasons for relying on the information made available by those authorities, when it signed the loan.
Zato je predlagal sporazumno rešitev in pozval agencij o (i), naj se pritožnici opraviči za to, da je nekatera izmed njenih e-poštnih sporočil štela za ponavljajoča se in nesmiselna ter (ii) naj odgovori na omenjena vprašanja.
He thus found no maladministration as regards this issue.
Agencij a je predlog varuha človekovih pravic sprejela, se pritožnici opravičila in odgovorila na omenjena tri vprašanja.
The Ombudsman also noted that, in the meantime, the EIB had informed the complainant about the conclusions of the Polish authorities.
V odločbi je varuh človekovih pravic pozdravil dejstvo, da je agencij a sprejela njegov predlog.
The Ombudsman therefore found that no further inquiries were justified in this respect.
Glede na to, da pritožnica ni bila zadovoljna s pisnim opravičilom in odgovori na njena vprašanja, pa je sklenil, da ni mogoče doseči sporazumne rešitve.
The Ombudsman made the same finding as regards the complainant’s claim, given that it appeared that the EIB had already made the relevant payment.
Kljub temu pa je varuh človekovih pravic zavzel stališče, da je agencij a odpravila izražene razloge za zaskrbljenost, in zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman also referred to the findings of the Polish Ombudsman to whom the complainant had submi4 ed a parallel complaint against the Polish authorities.
Glede domneve, da agencij a ni obravnavala pritožničinih navedb in očitkov o neukrepanju, pa je varuh človekovih pravic na podlagi preveritve postopka, ki velja za izdajo dovoljenj za promet z zdravili, sklenil, da agencij a EMEA v postopku ni storila nepravilnosti, in zato končal primer.
Alleged lack of information with regard to an antidepressant
Domnevno nezadovoljivo obravnavanje zahtevkov za rejo konj v Avstriji i
Summary of decision on complaint 2370/2005/OV against the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3386/2005/WP zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The complainant’s husband commi4 ed suicide while taking the antidepressant Seroxat/Paroxetine. A er her husband’s death, the complainant contacted the European Medicines Agency with regard to the drug’s safety and suicide risk.
Volksanwalt (varuh človekovih pravic) za avstrijsko zvezno deželo Vorarlberg je varuhu človekovih pravic posredoval pritožbo, ki jo je prejel od rejca konj iz zvezne dežele Vorarlberg.
Among other things, the complainant requested information on the Agency’s scientific opinion on the drug.
Po mnenju pritožnika določeni regionalni predpisi o rodovniških knjigah niso v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The complainant also considered that the replies that were sent by the Agency were unsatisfactory.
Njegova pritožba se je nanašala tudi na obliko in vsebino identifi kacij skih dokumentov za konje
In its opinion, the Agency argued that it had not answered certain of the complainant’s e-mails because they had been repetitive and pointless.
(„konjskih potnih listov“). Pritožnik je pravzaprav zatrjeval, da mu Komisija ni ustrezno odgovorila na njegove zahteve za pravno pojasnilo.
It stated that, for the rest, it had given all the necessary information to the complainant.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da je bila zaradi pritožnikovih trditev v stalnem stiku s pristojnimi avstrijskimi organi, ki jim je tudi dala navodila za pravilno razlago zakonodaje Skupnosti.
A er careful analysis of the relevant correspondence, the Ombudsman concluded that the Agency had failed to reply to three questions raised by the complaint.
Kar zadeva splošno vprašanje uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti o organizacijah, ki vodij o rodovniške knjige, ki je že bilo predmet predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Evropskega sodišča, je že prejela pritožbo glede kršitve, v zvezi s katero se je prav tako obrnila na avstrijske organe.
He therefore made a proposal for a friendly solution and invited the Agency (i) to apologise for having considered some of the complainant’s e-mails as repetitive and pointless and (ii) to reply to the said questions.
Poleg tega je preiskovala tudi novo pritožbo, v kateri je pritožnik navedel sum goljufije pri uporabi konjskih potnih listov v Vorarlbergu.
The Agency accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal, apologised to the complainant and replied to the three questions.
Po skrbni proučitvi navedb Komisije in pritožnika je varuh človekovih pravic zaprosil Komisijo za več informacijo različnih postopkih, v okviru katerih je obravnavala oziroma še obravnava vprašanja, ki jih je sprožil pritožnik.
In his decision, the Ombudsman welcomed the fact that the Agency had accepted his proposal.
Komisija mu je nato dala podroben pregled dveh pritožbenih postopkov, ki se nanašata na pritožnikove trditve in sta oba še v fazi preiskave.
Given, however, that the complainant remained dissatisfied with the le4 er of apology and with the replies to her questions, he concluded that no friendly solution could be achieved.
Navedla je, da je bila večina težav že odpravljenih.
The Ombudsman nevertheless took the view that since the action taken by the Agency removed the concerns he had identified, there was no longer any maladministration by the Agency.
Vse težave, ki še niso bile odpravljene in se nanašajo na zakonodajo Skupnosti, se še preiskujejo.
As regards the allegation that the complainant had not been heard and that there had been lack of action by the Agency, the Ombudsman concluded, on the basis of an analysis of the procedure applicable to the adoption of medicine marketing authorisations, that there had been no maladministration by the Agency. He therefore closed the case.
V svojih ugotovitvah in nadaljnjih stikih s službami varuha človekovih pravic je pritožnik poročal, da so bili doseženi nekateri pozitivni rezultati, zlasti v zvezi s konjskimi potnimi listi. Dodal je, da je popolnoma zadovoljen z načinom reševanja njegove pritožbe na ravni EU, tako pri Komisiji kot pri varuhu človekovih pravic, in da verjame, da bo Komisija s svojimi nadaljnjimi prizadevanji odpravila preostale težave.
CASESSETTLED BY THEINSTITUTION
Varuh človekovih pravic je sklenil, da je Komisija očitno sprejela ukrepe za rešitev zadeve in tako zadovoljila pritožnika.
The European Commission
Spor v zvezi z oblikovanjem sporazuma o arbitraži
Alleged unsatisfactory handling of requests concerning horse breeding in Austria
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 1126/2006/SAB (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisijo o
Summary of decision on complaint 3386/2005/WP against the European Commission
Pritožil se je, ker Komisija ni želela delno spremeniti besedila osnutka sporazuma, ki ga je predlagala pritožniku v zvezi s pooblastilom arbitražnega organa, ki naj bi odločil o pritožnikovi pravici do dodatka za izobraževanje za njegove otroke.
The Volksanwalt (Ombudsman) for the Austrian region of Vorarlberg forwarded a complaint to the Ombudsman, which he had received from a horse breeder residing in the Vorarlberg region.
Zadevni del predlaganega sporazuma se je nanašal na dodatek za pritožnikova „dva otroka, ki obiskujeta vrtec“.
The complainant considered that certain regional rules on stud-books were not in conformity with Community law.
Pritožnik je mnenja, da je to besedilo zavajajoče, ker sta njegova otroka obiskovala oddelek „maternelle“ francoske šole, ki je po njegovem mnenju popolnoma ustrezna izobraževalna ustanova.
Furthermore, his complaint concerned the format and content of identification documents for horses (“horse passports”).
Trdil je, da bi uporaba izraza, kot je „vrtec“, v sporazumu o arbitraži pomenila vnaprejšnjo opredelitev vprašanja v tem primeru.
The complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his requests for legal clarification. cation.
Varuh človekovih pravic je ugotovil, da obstajajo zadostni razlogi za uvedbo preiskave, in je v uvodnem pismu Komisiji izrecno vprašal, ali je pripravljena sprejeti njegov predlog za drugačno posebno oblikovanje ključne točke osnutka sporazuma o arbitraži.
In its opinion, the Commission submi4 ed that, on the basis of the complainant’s submissions, it had been in constant contact with the competent Austrian authorities and had given them indications as to the correct interpretation of Community law.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju predlagala besedilo sporazuma o arbitraži, ki je bilo na podlagi predloga varuha človekovih pravic skladno tudi s prizadevanji Komisije za jasno opredelitev spornega vprašanja. Pritožnik je sprejel ta končni predlog in prosil varuha človekovih pravic, da zaključi primer. Varuh človekovih pravic je zato menil, da je Komisija rešila primer.
As regards the general question of the application of Community law concerning organisations that maintain stud-books, which had already been the subject of a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice, it had received an infringement complaint, in the framework of which it had again contacted the Austrian authorities.
Ko je bil primer zaključen, je pritožnik obvestil varuha človekovih pravic, da so razsodniki odločili v njegovo korist. Zahvalil se je varuhu za učinkovit poseg in poudaril, da je omogočil pošten potek arbitraže.
A er careful consideration of the Commission’s and the complainant’s submissions, the Ombudsman asked the Commission for more information on the di� erent procedures in the framework of which it had been or was still dealing with the issues raised by the complainant.
Pritožnik pa je menil, da je bila večina besed in fraz, ki so bile v bolgarskem besedilu označene kot nepravilne, dejansko pravilnih. Pritožnik je v pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic trdil, da je Komisija neupravičeno zavrnila njegovo ponudbo.
Thereupon, the Commission gave a detailed overview of two complaint procedures related to the complainant’s concerns, both of which were still under investigation.
Komisija je v svojem mnenju navedla, da se je po pritožbi, ki jo je pritožnik vložil pri varuhu človekovih pravic, odločila še enkrat sklicati medinstitucionalni odbor za oceno ponudb, da bi ponovno preučili ponudbo in se izognili morebitni nepravični obravnavi.
It stated that most of the problems had been resolved.
Ponudba je bila na koncu sprejeta z oceno kakovosti 12/20.
All problems that had not been resolved and that were related to Community law were still being investigated.
Komisija je poleg tega obvestila varuha človekovih pravic, da so pritožniku ponudili podpis okvirne pogodbe.
In his observations and further contacts with the Ombudsman’s services, the complainant reported that certain positive results had been achieved, particularly in relation to the horse passports.
Pritožnik je sporočil službam varuha človekovih pravic, da je popolnoma zadovoljen za načinom, kako je Komisija rešila njegovo težavo.
He added that he was entirely satisfied with the way his complaint had been handled at the EU level, both by the Commission and by the Ombudsman, and stated that he was optimistic that the Commission’s continued activity would lead to the resolution of the remaining problems.
Izjavil je tudi, da je nanj naredila vtis hitrost reševanja zadeve, in se zahvalil varuhu človekovih pravic za posredovanje.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission appeared to have taken steps to se4 le the ma4 er and had thereby satisfied the complainant.
Sklenil je, da se je Komisija sprejela ukrepe za rešitev zadeve in s tem izpolnila pritožnikova pričakovanja.
Dispute concerning formulation of an arbitration agreement
Neustrezna obdelava zapadlega plačila po pogodbi
Summary of decision on complaint 1126/2006/SAB (Confidential) against the European Commission
Povzetek odločbe o pritožbi 3495/2006/GG (Zaupno) zoper Evropsko komisijo o
The complainant was working for a Commission Delegation in a third country, on the basis of an ALAT (Administrative and Technical Local Sta�) contract.
Pritožnik, nemška univerza, je sodeloval v projektu v okviru programa Erasmus. Evropska komisija je privolila v dodelitev subvencij e v najvišjem znesku 45 156 EUR.
The relevant part of the proposed agreement referred to an allowance for the complainant’s “two children who a4 end a kindergarten”.
Na koncu so celotni izdatki pritožnika znašali 42 833 EUR.
He argued that to include an expression such as “kindergarten” in the arbitration agreement would pre-empt the issue in his case.
Vodenje projekta je bilo poverjeno Uradu za tehnično pomoč (Technical Assistance Office, TAO).
The Ombudsman found su cient grounds for opening an inquiry into the ma4 er and, in his opening le4 er to the Commission, expressly asked it whether it was willing to accept his proposal for a specific alternative formulation of the crucial point of the dra arbitration agreement.
TAO je marca 2002 obvestil pritožnika, da dve postavki izdatkov, ki znašata 5 395 EUR in 4 111 EUR, nista bili upravičeni. TAO je ugotovil, da dokončni znesek subvencij e znaša 33 327 EUR.
The complainant accepted this final proposal and asked the Ombudsman to close the case.
Komisija pa je sprejela pritožnikov ugovor, da je znesek v višini 4 111 EUR upravičen. Komisija je obvestila pritožnika, da je tako treba povrniti znesek v višini 3 202 EUR.
He thanked the Ombudsman for his e cient intervention, noting that it had allowed the arbitration to proceed in a fair way.
Zdi se, da je Komisija prištela znesek v višini 4 111 EUR k znesku 33 327 EUR, ki je bil že sprejet, in nato to vsoto (v višini 37 438 EUR) odštela od predplačila v višini 40 640 EUR, ki je bilo že izvedeno.
Wrongful rejection of a translation tender
Komisija tako ni upoštevala dejstva, da je pritožnik že vrnil znesek v višini 5 395 EUR.
A translator living in Germany submi4 ed a bid in reply to an invitation to tender for translation services into Bulgarian, launched by the Commission. The bid was rejected because, according
Vendar je Komisija maja 2004 obvestila pritožnika, da bo znesek v višini 3 202 EUR, glede na to, da ni bil povrnjen, odpisala od drugih zahtevkov, ki jih ima pritožnik do Komisije. e.
However, the complainant considered that most of the words and phrases that had been marked as incorrect in the Bulgarian text in question were in fact correct.
Vsa nadaljnja pritožnikova prizadevanja, da bi prepričal Komisijo, da je prišlo do napake, so bila neuspešna.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had wrongly rejected his bid.
Pritožnikova pritožba pri varuhu človekovih pravic se je v bistvu nanašala na to, da Komisija zadeve ni ustrezno obravnavala.
He claimed that the Commission should annul its decision to reject his bid and that it should admit it to the further selection procedure.
Pritožnik je trdil, da bi Komisija morala povrniti znesek v višini 5 395 EUR, in sicer skupaj z obrestmi, ki znašajo 44,47 EUR.