natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See Article 22 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman’s website: h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int.
Prim. člen 22(1) Evropskega kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, ki je na voljo na spletni strani Evropskega varuha (h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int). h p://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int.
Decisions following an inquiry unless one or more of the exceptions other than Article 4 (2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001 applies.
3.2 Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov je Evropski varuh pripravil osnutek priporočila Svetu, naj ponovno preuči prošnjo pritožnika in mu omogoči dostop do dokumentov 7184/01 in 8002/01, razen če zanju ne veljata ena ali več izjem, poleg druge alinee člena 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001.
3.3 The Council abstained from commenting on the substance of the Ombudsman’s drarecommendation because a case pending before the Court of First Instance (Case T84/03, Maurizio Turco v Council) raises the same issue of interpretation of Regulation 1049/2001.
3.3 Svet se je vzdržal pripomb na vsebino osnutka priporočila Evropskega varuha, kajti primer, ki teče pred Sodiščem prve stopnje (primer T-84/03, Maurizio Turco v. Svet), prav tako zadeva razlago Uredbe 1049/2001.
The Ombudsman therefore has to consider whether to make a Special Report to the European Parliament.
Evropski varuh se mora torej odločiti, ali bo sestavil posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu.
The Ombudsman recalls that the European Parliament has already been informed of the Ombudsman’s views on the issues concerned by the Special Report presented on 12 December 2002 in case 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH.
Evropski varuh opozarja, da je Evropski parlament obvestil o svojem mnenju glede tega vprašanja v posebnem poročilu, ki ga je predstavil 12. decembra 2002 v zvezi s primerom 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH.
Moreover, the Ombudsman understands that, in view of the legal proceedings in Case T84/03, the Commi ee on Petitions of the European Parliament has decided not to make a report on that Special Report.
Varuh se tudi zaveda, da je, ob upoštevanju sodnega postopka v primeru T-84/03, Odbor za peticij e Evropskega parlamenta sklenil, da ne pripravi poročila o posebnem poročilu.
Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be appropriate to make a further Special Report and that no further inquiries in the present case are therefore justified. ed.
Glede na navedeno Evropski varuh ugotavlja, da v tem primeru priprava posebnega poročila ni primerna, za nadaljnjo preiskavo pa ni dovolj utemeljenih razlogov.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Council as regards the complainant’s first two allegations and no further inquiries appear to be justified as regards the third allegation.
Na podlagi preiskav Evropskega varuha o pritožbi niso bile ugotovljene nobene nepravilnosti v dejavnostih Sveta glede prvih dveh pritožnikovih trditev, glede tretje pa nadaljnja preiskava ni utemeljena.
As mentioned in the above summary, on 12 December 2002, the Ombudsman submi ed a special report to the European Parliament on complaint 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH, which also concerned the Council’s refusal to grant access to opinions of the Council’s Legal Service.
Kot je omenjeno v zgornjem povzetku, je Evropski varuh 12. decembra 2002 predložil Evropskemu parlamentu posebno poročilo o pritožbi 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH, v katerem je obravnaval tudi zavrnitev Sveta glede dostopa do mnenj pravne službe.
On 10 June 2003, the European Ombudsman informed the Commi ee on Petitions of the European Parliament of the fact that proceedings have been brought in the Court of First Instance (Case T84/03, Maurizio Turco v Council) which raise the same issue of legal principle as the special report: that is to say, the correct interpretation of Regulation 1049/2001 as regards Legal Service opinions on dra legislation.
10. junij a 2003 je Evropski varuh Odbor za peticij e Evropskega parlamenta seznanil z dejstvom, da na Sodišču prve stopnje poteka sodni postopek (primer T-84/03, Maurizio Turco v. Svet), ki prav tako kot posebno poročilo zadeva vprašanje ustrezne pravne razlage Uredbe 1049/2001 glede mnenj pravne službe k osnutkom predpisov.
In light of this information, the Commi ee on Petitions decided not to make a report on the Ombudsman’s special report.
Glede na navedeno je Odbor za peticij e sklenil, da ne pripravi poročila o posebnem poročilu Evropskega varuha.
The Statute of the Ombudsman provides for the submission of a report to the European Parliament to be the final step in an inquiry by the Ombudsman.
Statut Evropskega varuha določa, da je predložitev poročila Evropskemu parlamentu zadnja stopnja preiskave Varuha.
The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
Varuh ja zato s tem zaključil primer.
OWNINITIATIVEINQUIRIES BY THE OMBUDSMAN
PREISKAVEEVROPSKEGA VARUHA NALASTNOPOBUDO
REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN TENDER PROCEDURES
RAZPOLOŽLJIVA PRAVNA SREDSTVA V RAZPISNIH POSTOPKIH ZA ODDAJO NAROČIL
Decision in own initiative inquiry OI/2/2002/IJH concerning the European Commission
Sklep preiskave na lastno pobudo OI/2/2002/IHJ o Evropski komisij i
THE REASONS FOR THE INQUIRY
RAZLOGI ZA PREISKAVO
In the course of dealing with a complaint made by an unsuccessful bidder in a tender procedure
Med obravnavo pritožbe ponudnika, neuspešnega v postopku za oddajo naročila, ki ga je
112 organised by the Commission
112, je Evropskega varuha ugotovil, da pravna sredstva, na voljo takim osebam, organizirala Komisij a morda niso zadostna.
, the Ombudsman became concerned that the remedies available to such persons might not be adequate.
Na začetku preiskave na lastno pobudo je Evropski varuh ugotovil, da glede na sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Alcatel:
… the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is, in all cases, open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages.113
... morajo države članice v vsakem primeru zagotoviti možnost preverjanja odločitve naročnika, in sicer še pred sklenitvijo pogodbe s ponudnikom v postopku za oddajo naročila. Pri tem se uporabi postopek, v katerem lahko tožnik doseže razveljavitev sklepa ob izpolnjevanju ustreznih pogojev, kljub možnosti, da se po sklenitvi pogodbe povrne odškodnina113.
The Ombudsman also noted that Article 56 of the (subsequently replaced) Financial Regulation provided as follows:
Evropski varuh je prav tako ugotovil, da člen 56 (kasneje nadomeščen) Finančne uredbe določa:
When concluding contracts for which the amount involved is equal to or greater than the threshold provided for by the Council directives on the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public works, supplies and services contracts, each institution shall comply with the same obligations as are imposed upon bodies in the Member States by those directives.
Pri sklepanju pogodb, katerih vrednost je enaka ali presega mejne vrednosti, določene z direktivami Sveta o uskladitvi postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za blago, storitve in gradnje, vsaka od institucijizpolni enake obveznosti, kot jih direktive nalagajo organom v državah članicah.
The implementing measures provided for in Article 139 shall include appropriate provisions to that end.
Izvedbeni ukrepi iz člena 139 zajemajo tudi ustrezne določbe v ta namen.
In view of the above, the Ombudsman was concerned that a possible failure by the Commission to provide bidders in its tender procedures with access to a review procedure of the kind foreseen in the Alcatel judgement could be an instance of maladministration.
Glede na to Evropski varuh ugotavlja, da bi lahko ravnanje Komisij e veljalo za nepravilno, če ponudnikom v svojih postopkih za oddajo naročil ne bi omogočila uporabe podobnega revizijskega postopka, kot je bil predviden v sodbi v zadevi Alcatel.
The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to inform him whether a review procedure exists and, if not, whether the Commission is prepared to introduce such a procedure rapidly.
Varuh je zato prosil Komisij o za obvestilo, ali revizijski postopek obstaja. V nasprotnem primeru je želel izvedeti, ali je Komisij a pripravljena uvesti tak postopek v čim krajšem času.
The Commission’s opinion was, in summary, as follows:
Povzetek mnenja Komisije: e:
In the light of the Alcatel judgement, the Commission agrees that, prior to contract signature, authorising officers will have to inform without delay all bidders or candidates of the award decision in the public procurement procedures covered by Article 56 of the current Financial Regulation and by Article 105 of the new Financial Regulation, and should provide for a reasonable delay before contract signature in order to enable bidders and candidates to request the reasons for the award decision and, the case being, fi le a judicial recourse against such a decision.
Z vidika sodbe v zadevi Alcatel se Komisij a strinja, da bodo morali odredbodajalci pred sklenitvijo pogodbe nemudoma obvestiti vse ponudnike ali kandidate o sklepu o oddaji naročila v postopkih javnega naročanja, kot jih določata člen 56 sedanje Finančne uredbe in člen 105 nove Finančne uredbe. Obenem bodo morali poskrbeti za primeren odlog podpisa pogodbe, s čimer bodo ponudnikom in kandidatom omogočili, da zaprosijo za obrazložitev sklepa o oddaji naročila in po potrebi na sodišču vložijo pritožbo zoper sklep.
1351/2001/(ME)MF, closed by decision dated 17 February 2003.
1351/2001/(ME)MF, zaključen s sklepom z dne 17. februarja 2003.
The Commission will pay particular a ention to the practical and organisational aspects of this procedure, in order to ensure a timely management of its activities, taking account of the high number of the Commission’s public purchases every year (several hundreds) and the duration of the public procurement procedures.
Komisij a bo pozorna zlasti na praktične in organizacijske vidike tega postopka, da bi tako zagotovila pravočasno izvedbo svojih postopkov glede na veliko število javnih naročil Komisij e (nekaj sto) vsako leto in glede na trajanje postopkov javnega naročanja.
In the light of this, the Commission intends to work out practical arrangements so that the procedure could be in place from the beginning of 2003 and taken into account in the planning of the new public procurement procedures to be launched by then.
V tem smislu Komisij a načrtuje pripravo praktičnih rešitev, da bi postopek lahko začeli uporabljati na začetku leta 2003 in ga upoštevali pri načrtovanju novih postopkov javnega naročanja, ki bi se do takrat začeli.
The Ombudsman’s request for further information
Prošnja Evropskega varuha za dodatne informacij e
The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s positive response to the owninitiative inquiry and requested the Commission to provide details of the practical arrangements and procedure mentioned in its opinion.
Evropski varuh je pozdravil pozitivni odgovor Komisij e na njegovo preiskavo na lastno pobudo in jo zaprosil za podrobnosti o praktičnih rešitvah in postopku, ki ga omenja v mnenju.
The Ombudsman also invited the Commission to indicate whether it has any plans to provide a non-judicial remedy that tenderers could use, if they so wish, as an alternative to judicial recourse.
Prav tako je zaprosil Komisij o za odgovor, ali namerava uvesti možnost uporabe izvensodnih sredstev, ki bi jo ponudniki lahko izkoristili kot alternativo pritožbi na sodišču.
The Commission’s reply
Odgovor Komisij e
A er sending holding replies on 1 and 14 April 2003, the Commission sent the following further comments on 3 July 2003:
Potem ko je 1. in 14. aprila 2003 Komisij a poslala pisni odgovor, je 3. julij a 2003 posredovala še naslednja dodatna pojasnila:
The Commission has adopted a Communication se ing up a procedure to inform all bidders or candidates of the award decision in the public procurement procedures covered by Article 105 of the
, s katerim je bil uveden postopek obveščanja vseh ponudnikov ali kandidatov o sklepu o oddaji naročila v postopkih javnega naročanja, na podlagi člena 105 nove
DECISIONSFOLLOWING new Financial Regulation.115 This Communication provides for a reasonable delay before contract signature in order to enable tenderers to request the detailed grounds for the award decision and where necessary, seek a judicial remedy against such decision.
Finančne uredbe omogoči vložitev zahteve za podrobno obrazložitev sklepa o oddaji naročila in po potrebi uporaba sodnega varstva proti takemu sklepu.
(The Commission enclosed a copy of the Communication with its opinion).
(Komisija je mnenju priložila kopij o sporočila.)
The Commission does not consider it necessary to provide a non-judicial remedy to tenderers, for the following reasons:
Uvedba izvensodnih sredstev za ponudnike se Komisij i ne zdi nujna iz naslednjih razlogov:
– the procedure laid down in the Communication will allow tenderers to seek an effective judicial remedy against the contracting authority’s award decision;
– postopek, določen v Sporočilu, bo omogočil ponudnikom uporabo učinkovitega sodnega varstva proti sklepu naročnika o oddaji naročila;
– in view of the low number of complaints presently lodged before the Court, the necessity of providing for a non-judicial remedy does not appear to be justified; ed;
– glede na nizko število pritožb, ki so trenutno vložene na Sodišču, se uvedba izvensodnih sredstev ne zdi upravičena;
– fi finally, the human and material resources needed for executing the non-judicial remedies tasks, which may in future have an interinstitutional dimension, are not available.
– kadrovski in materialni viri, potrebni za izvajanje nalog v zvezi z izvensodnimi postopki, ki bi lahko v prihodnosti imeli medinstitucionalne razsežnosti, niso na razpolago.
Review procedures available to bidders in tender procedures
Varuh je zato začel preiskavo na lastno pobudo in prosil Komisij o za obvestilo, ali revizijski postopek obstaja.
1.1 The Ombudsman was concerned that possible failure by the Commission to provide bidders in its tender procedures with a review procedure of the kind foreseen in the Alcatel judgement116 could be maladministration.
1.2 Komisij a se je strinjala, da je v smislu zgoraj omenjene sodbe treba zagotoviti primeren odlog pred podpisom pogodbe. S tem se ponudnikom in kandidatom omogoči vložitev zahteve za obrazložitev sklepa o oddaji naročila in morebitne pritožbe proti sklepu na sodišču.
The Ombudsman therefore began an owninitiative inquiry, asking the Commission to inform him whether a review procedure exists and, if not, whether the Commission is prepared to introduce such a procedure rapidly.
Komisij a je omenila, da namerava oblikovati praktične rešitve za uvedbo takega postopka od začetka leta 2003.
Procedure for informing candidates and tenderers, a er a contract has been awarded and before the actual contract has been signed, in respect of public procurement contracts awarded by the Commission under Article 105 of the Financial Regulation.
Postopek o obveščanju kandidatov in ponudnikov po oddaji javnega naročila in pred dejanskim podpisom pogodbe v zvezi z oddajo javnih naročil s strani Komisij e na podlagi člena 105 Finančne uredbe.
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities 2002 OJ L 248/1.
Uredba Sveta (ES/Euratom) št. 1605/2002 z dne 25. junij a 2002 o Finančni uredbi, ki se uporablja za skupni proračun Evropskih skupnosti, UL L 248 z dne 16. septembra 2002, str.1.
The Commission stated its intention to work out the practical arrangements to put such a procedure in place from the beginning of 2003.
1.3 Evropski varuh je pozdravil pozitivni odgovor Komisij e in zaprosil za podrobnosti o praktičnih rešitvah in postopku.
He also invited the Commission to indicate whether it has plans to provide a non-judicial remedy that tenderers could use, if they so wish, as an alternative to judicial recourse.
Prav tako je Komisij o prosil za pojasnilo, ali načrtuje možnost uporabe izvensodnih sredstev, ki bi jo lahko ponudniki na lastno željo izkoristili kot alternativo pritožbi na sodišče.
The Commission’s reply is analysed in the following sections of the decision.
Odgovor Komisij e je razčlenjen v naslednjih delih sklepa.
The Commission’s Communication of 3 July 2003
Sporočilo Komisij e z dne 3. julij a 2003
2.1 The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had adopted, on 3 July 2003, a Communication117 in response to the owninitiative inquiry.
2.1 Komisij a je obvestila Evropskega varuha, da je 3. julij a 2003 sprejela Sporočilo117 kot odgovor na preiskavo na lastno pobudo.
The Ombudsman has carefully examined the Communication, which establishes a procedure to provide information rapidly to unsuccessful tenderers and candidates, so that the la er have the opportunity to bring judicial proceedings to challenge an award decision, before the relevant contract is signed.
Evropski varuh je skrbno preučil Sporočilo o vzpostavitvi postopka glede hitrega obveščanja neuspešnih ponudnikov in kandidatov, s čimer se jim omogoči uporaba sodnih postopkov v zvezi s pritožbo na sklep o oddaji naročila pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe.
The procedure applies to contract awards covered by Article 105 of the Financial Regulation.118
Postopek se uporablja za oddajo javnega naročila, ki ga ureja člen 105 Finančne uredbe.118
The Ombudsman notes the following as the main elements of the procedure:
Evropski varuh meni, da so glavni elementi postopka naslednji:
As soon as possible a er the award decision and within the following week at the latest, the contracting authority notifies all unsuccessful tenderers or candidates simultaneously, by mail and fax or email, that their bid or application has not been accepted.
Naročnik prav tako obvesti neuspešne ponudnike ali kandidate, da pogodba z uspešnim ponudnikom ne bo podpisana pred iztekom dveh koledarskih tednov, šteto od dneva, ko so bila istočasno poslana obvestila drugim ponudnikom.
Each tenderer or candidate is notified individually and the reasons why the bid or application has not been accepted are specified in each case; for instance by taking up, in a concise but explicit form, details contained in the award decision.
Prav tako navede, da se dodatne informacij e o razlogih za zavrnitev ponudbe ali vloge lahko dobijo na zahtevo, poslano po pošti, faksu ali elektronski pošti. V primeru ponudnikov, ki so vložili popolno ponudbo, lahko te informacij e vključujejo značilnosti in ustrezne prednosti sprejete ponudbe ter ime uspešnega ponudnika.
The contracting authority also informs the unsuccessful tenderers or candidates that it will not sign the contract with the successful tenderer until two calendar weeks have elapsed from the day a er the simultaneous dispatch of the notification messages.
Naročnik prav tako obvesti uspešnega ponudnika o obvestilih, poslanih neuspešnim kandidatom ali ponudnikom.
It will also be stated that additional information about the reasons for rejection of the bid or application can be obtained in response to a request sent in writing, by mail, fax or e-mail.
Obvesti ga tudi, da pogodbe ni mogoče podpisati pred iztekom dveh koledarskih tednov od dneva, ko so bila obvestila poslana. Prav tako je treba poudariti, da lahko naročnik:
For all tenderers who have put in an admissible bid, this information could include the characteristics and relative advantages of the bid accepted and the name of the successful tenderer.
- pred podpisom pogodbe odpove javno naročilo ali postopek za oddajo javnega naročila, ne da bi bili kandidati ali ponudniki upravičeni do kakršnega koli nadomestila;
Finally, it will be added that if the contract cannot be concluded with the successful tenderer or if the successful tenderer were to pull out, the contracting authority may review the award decision and could then award the contract to another tenderer, close the procedure or decide not to award the contract.
- začasno odloži podpis pogodbe zaradi dodatne obravnave, če to upravičujejo zahteve ali pripombe neuspešnih ponudnikov, poslane v roku zgoraj omenjenih dveh koledarskih tednov, ali kakršne koli druge relevantne informacije, prejete v istem roku.
This Article provides for the Directives on public supply, services and works contracts to establish the thresholds that determine publication arrangements, choice of procedures and corresponding time limits under the Financial Regulation.
Člen se nanaša na direktive o oddaji javnih naročil storitev, blaga in gradenj, s katerimi se predpišejo mejne vrednosti za določitev načinov objave, izbire postopkov in ustreznih rokov v skladu s Finančno uredbo.
The Ombudsman therefore understands that the procedure established by the Communication applies to all contract awards that fall within the thresholds of the Directives.
Evropski varuh zato meni, da se postopek, določen v sporočilu, nanaša na oddajo javnih naročil, ki sodijo v okvir mejnih vrednosti direktiv.
- until the contract has been signed, either abandon the procurement, or cancel the award procedure, without the candidates or tenderers being entitled to claim any compensation;
Sklepi preiskav oddaji naročila in razveljavitev sklepa pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe119.
- suspend signing of the contract for additional examination, if justified by requests or comments made by unsuccessful tenderers during the two calendar weeks mentioned above, or by any other relevant information received during that period.
Varuh zato meni, da je Komisij a ukrepala in ponudnikom v svojih postopkih za oddajo naročil omogočila dostop do takega revizijskega postopka, kot je predviden v sodbi v zadevi Alcatel. Z ozirom na to ni ugotovil nepravilnosti v ravnanju Komisije. e.
2.4 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission’s Communication does not expressly provide that unsuccessful tenderers and candidates shall be informed of the possibility to bring judicial proceedings to challenge an award decision and to have that decision set aside before the relevant contract is signed.
2.4 Evropski varuh je ugotovil, da v Sporočilu Komisij e ni izrecno določeno, da so neuspešni ponudniki in kandidati obveščeni o možnosti, da lahko uporabijo sodno varstvo glede sklepa o oddaji naročila in da obstaja možnosti razveljavitve sklepa pred podpisom zadevne pogodbe.
The Ombudsman points out that, according to the Commission’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Staff of the European Commission in their Relations with the Public120, decisions should, where appropriate, refer to the possibility of starting judicial proceedings in accordance with Article 230 EC.
Varuh poudarja, da bi morali sklepi, v skladu s kodeksom dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev Evropske komisije120, opozoriti na možnost sprožitve sodnega postopka v skladu s členom 230 Pogodbe ES.
The Ombudsman considers that it would be in conformity with the principles of good administration to provide such information to unsuccessful tenderers and candidates.
Prav tako meni, da bi bilo obvestilo o tej informacij i neuspešnim ponudnikom in kandidatom v skladu z načeli dobrega javnega upravljanja.
A further remark is therefore made below.
Glej dodatno opombo spodaj.
2.5 The Ombudsman considers that the legal basis for the new procedure falls outside the scope of his inquiry.
2.5 Varuh meni, da pravna podlaga za nov postopek ne sodi v obseg njegove preiskave.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission refers to Articles 100 (2) and
Kljub temu je ugotovil, da se Komisij a sklicuje na člena 100(2) in 101 Finančne uredbe121in na člen 149
101 of the Financial Regulation121 and to Article 149 of the Implementing Rules122 as the legal basis.
Izvedbenih pravil122 kot pravno podlago.
Possibility of an additional non-judicial review procedure
Možnost dodatnega izvensodnega revizijskega postopka