Şunu aradınız:: pritožnikovo (Slovence - İngilizce)

ne strinjam se s pritožnikovo razlago navedenega odlomka sodbe.
i do not share the appellant’s interpretation of the passage i have just quoted.

podobni argumenti so bili podani v zvezi z pritožnikovo dobičkonosnostjo.
similar arguments were raised in relation to the complainant's profitability.

zato ugotavljam, da je treba tudi zadnjo pritožnikovo trditev zavrniti.
i therefore consider that this final argument put forward by the appellant must also be rejected.

komisija je pristala na plačilo 178 415,10 eur za pritožnikovo sodelovanje v projektu.
it claimed that the commission should reimburse an amount of eur 5 395, as well as interest amounting to eur 44.47.

vseeno pa je varuh kritično opomnil komisijo, ker ni odgovorila na pritožnikovo pismo.
the ombudsman did however make a critical remark in so far as the commission’s failure to reply to the complainant’s le er was concerned.

razlog za pritožnikovo zahtevo je omogočiti nvo ustrezno predhodno obvestilo o tem, kaj se pripravlja na konvencij i.
the reason for the complainant’s request is to give ngos adequate advance warning of what is coming up in the convention.

sekretariat evropske konvencij e se je neustrezno odzval na pritožnikovo zahtevo po dostopu do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva.
the secretariat of the european convention failed to respond correctly to the complainant’s request for access to agendas and minutes of the praesidium.

s pritožnikovo privolitvijo je evropski varuh človekovih pravic posredoval pritožbo francoskemu varuhu človekovih pravic, ki je rešil težavo.
with the complainant's consent, the european ombudsman transferred the complaint to the french ombudsman who found a solution to the problem.

komisij a pa je potrdila, da ni odgovorila na pritožnikovo sporočilo z dne 5. aprila 2002 in se je za to opustitev tudi opravičila.
however, the commission acknowledged that no reply had been given to the complainant’s message of 5 april 2002 and apologised for this omission.

1.2 v svojem mnenju je parlament obžaloval, da njegove službe niso odgovorile na pritožnikovo pismo z dne 19. novembra 2002.
1.2 in its opinion, the parliament regre ed that its services had failed to reply to the complainant’s le er of 19 november 2002.

1.3 varuh ugotavlja, da so pritožnikovo pritožbo zoper kršitev, ki jo je vložil pri komisij i, v generalnem sekretariatu registrirali januarja 1998.
1.3 the ombudsman notes that the complainant’s infringement complaint to the commission was registered by its secretariat general in january 1998.

varuh človekovih pravic je zato 12. septembra 2006 na komisijo naslovil osnutek priporočila, v katerem je od nje zahteval, da čim prej in čim bolj vestno obravnava pritožnikovo pritožbo.
on 12 september 2006, the ombudsman therefore addressed a dra recommendation urging the commission to deal with the complainant’s infringement complaint as rapidly and as diligently as possible.

ker pa je komisija zagovarjala primernost svoje prejšnje zavrnitve, je varuh človekovih pravic menil, da bi bilo koristno preučiti, ali je bila komisija upravičena zavrniti pritožnikovo prvotno zahtevo po dostopu.
in his view, the commission’s interpretation of the relevant exception to the rule of public access was so general that it appeared to deprive the exception of its meaning.

1.2 v svojem mnenju računsko sodišče izjavlja, da je predsednik izbirne komisij e 30. januarja 2003 pisno odgovoril na pritožnikovo zahtevo ter mu posredoval nekaj več splošnih informacijin njegovo lastno oceno.
1.2 in its opinion, the court of auditors observes that, by le er of 30 january 2003, the president of the selection board responded to the complainant’s request by providing him with some more general information and with his own mark.

svet je v mnenju priznal, da je njegova služba za obveščanje javnosti na pritožnikovo elektronsko pošto, ki je bila napisana v irščini, odgovorila v angleščini. za ta neprijetni dogodek se je opravičil in zagotovil prevod odgovora v irščino.
in its opinion, the council acknowledged that its public information unit had replied in english to the complainant’s e-mail which was written in irish.

po mojem mnenju pa je pritožnikovo sklicevanje na trideseto uvodno izjavo uredbe 723/2004 neupo�tevno preprosto zato, ker se ta samo deloma nana�a na pritožnikov položaj.
in my opinion, it is far simpler than this, however; the reference to recital 30 in the preamble to regulation no 723/2004 is irrelevant, since it relates only partly to the situation of the appellant.

drugo e-poštno sporoÏilo eib z dne 30. maja 2002 pa je vzpostavilo razmerje med pritožnikovo e-pošto in njegovo prošnjo, namreÏ da utegne biti slednja zavrnjena, Ïe bo še naprej pošiljal e-poštne zahteve za informac` e.
the ombudsman noted that the eib’s second e-mail of 30 may 2002 established a link between the complainant’s e-mails and his application, namely that it could be rejected if he continued to send e-mails requesting information.