natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
– s ohledem na zvláštní zprávu evropského veřejného ochránce práv Evropskému parlamentu k návrhu doporučení Radě Evropské unie ve věci stížnosti č. 2395/2003/GG,
– having regard to the Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG,
– s ohledem na článek 1 Smlouvy o EU,
– having regard to Article 1 of the EU Treaty,
– s ohledem na nařízení (ES) Evropského parlamentu a Rady č. 1049/2001 ze dne 30. května 2001 týkající se přístupu veřejnosti k dokumentům Evropského parlamentu, Rady a Komise
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
– s ohledem na článek 255 Smlouvy o ES, který pojednává o přístupu k dokumentům Evropského parlamentu, Rady a Komise,
– having regard to Article 255 of the EC Treaty, which relates to access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission,
– s ohledem na články 195 a 207 Smlouvy o ES,
– having regard to Articles 195 and 207 of the EC Treaty,
– s ohledem na Laekenskou deklaraci o budoucnosti Evropské unie
– having regard to the Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union
Příloha I závěrů předsednictví ze zasedání Evropské rady v Laekenu ve dnech 14. a 15. prosince 2001. ,
Annex I to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of Laeken of 14 and 15 December 2001. ,
– s ohledem na zprávu Petičního výboru (A6‑0000/2006),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions ( A6-0056/2006 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že článek 195 Smlouvy o ES zplnomocňuje evropského veřejného ochránce práv k přijímání stížností ze strany občanů Unie, které se týkají případů nesprávného úředního postupu v činnostech orgánů nebo institucí Společenství,
A. whereas Article 195 of the EC Treaty empowers the European Ombudsman to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies,
G. vzhledem k tomu, že dne 19. listopadu 2003 pan Solana, generální tajemník Rady, ve své odpovědi na otevřený dopis stěžovatelů uvedl, že myšlenka otevřít rokování Rady v zákonodárných záležitostech veřejnosti získala značnou podporu,
F. whereas, on 19 November 2003, Mr Solana, the Council's Secretary General, in his reply to the complainants' open letter stated that opening up the Council's legislative deliberations to the public was an issue that found the very widest support,
I. vzhledem k tomu, že Rada ve svém jednacím řádu v pozměněném znění z roku 2004 zavedla články zajišťující větší otevřenost, pokud jde o zasedání, při nichž jedná v zákonodárné funkci,
H. whereas the Council, in its Rules of Procedure, as amended in 2004, introduced rules that provide for greater openness as regards the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity,
J. vzhledem k tomu, že v říjnu 2004 členské státy podepsaly Smlouvu o Ústavě pro Evropu, která obsahuje zvláštní ustanovení o tom, že Rada bude zasedat veřejně, pokud bude jednat a hlasovat o návrzích právních předpisů,
I. whereas, in October 2004, the Member States signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which contains an express provision to the effect that the Council is to meet in public when considering and voting on draft legislative acts,
K. vzhledem k tomu, že Rada ve své odpovědi na konkrétní otázky evropského veřejného ochránce práv nezmiňuje žádné překážky pro uplatňování jednacího řádu v pozměněném znění, jak to žádají stěžovatelé, ani žádné zásady nebo cíle vyššího zájmu, které by ji opravňovaly k odmítnutí zpřístupnit veřejnosti zasedání, při nichž jedná v zákonodárné funkci, avšak tvrdí, že schválení jednacího řádu je politickou a institucionální záležitostí, o které má rozhodovat pouze Rada,
J. whereas, in its reply to specific questions from the Ombudsman, the Council did not mention any obstacles to the implementation of the amendment of its Rules of Procedure, as requested by the complainants, nor any principles or aims of a higher order that would entitle it to refuse to open to the public the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity, but contended that the adoption of its Rules of Procedure was a political and institutional matter to be decided upon by the Council itself,
L. vzhledem k tomu, že ve své výroční zprávě za rok 1997 evropský veřejný ochránce práv označuje za nesprávný úřední postup situaci, kdy orgán veřejné správy nejedná v souladu s pravidly nebo zásadami, kterými je vázán,
K. whereas, in his Annual Report for 1997
M. vzhledem k tomu, že evropský veřejný ochránce práv dospěl k závěru, že skutečnost, že Rada odmítla zasedat veřejně, kdykoli jedná v zákonodárné funkci, a neuvedla pro to pádné důvody, je příkladem nesprávného úředního postupu,
http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/report97/pdf/en/rap97_en.pdf , the European Ombudsman considered that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it,
N. vzhledem k tomu, že evropský veřejný ochránce práv ve svém návrhu doporučení Radě v souladu s čl.
L. whereas the Ombudsman concluded that the fact that the Council refused to decide to meet publicly whenever it acts in its legislative capacity without giving good reasons for that refusal was an instance of maladministration,
O. vzhledem k tomu, že především pokud Rada přijímá právní předpisy jako „body A“, skutečná diskuse a legislativní činnost probíhá ve Výboru stálých zástupců (COREPER) a tyto předpisy jsou Radou pouze schvalovány,
N. whereas, in particular when Council adopts acts as "A-points", the actual debate and legislative work is done by COREPER and the acts in question are merely approved by Council,
P. vzhledem k tomu, že Rada jedná ve své zákonodárné funkci také při zasedání dohodovacích výborů,
O. whereas the Council also acts in its legislative capacity in the meetings of the conciliation committees,
Q. vzhledem k tomu, že důvěryhodnost ministrů a jejich odpovědnost vůči veřejnosti vyžaduje, aby pozice členských států a hlasování v Radě byly známé veřejnosti,
P. whereas the accountability and public responsibility of ministers require that Member States' positions and votes in Council be known to the public,
R. vzhledem k tomu, že dvě zákonodárné složky EU stále pracují na základě částečně odlišných informací; vzhledem k tomu, že dokumenty projednávané Parlamentem jsou většinou veřejné, zatímco Rada často pracuje také s neveřejnými dokumenty a informacemi, a to i pokud projednává určité otázky, které vyžadují schválení v postupu spolurozhodování,
Q. whereas the two legislative branches of the EU still work on the basis of partially different sets of information; whereas the documents held by Parliament are in general public, while the Council often works also on the basis of classified documents and information, including when it considers certain questions which require adoption under the co-decision procedure,
S. vzhledem k tomu, že předsednictví Spojeného království předložilo Radě dva alternativní návrhy, jimiž reagovalo na doporučení evropského veřejného ochránce práv, z nichž jeden by znamenal úpravu jednacího řádu Rady, zatímco druhý by usiloval o zvýšení transparentnosti pouze v rámci stávajících předpisů,
R. whereas the UK Presidency made two alternative proposals to the Council with the aim of responding to the Ombudsman's recommendations, one of which would have involved amending Council's Rules of Procedure, while the other merely sought to improve transparency within the scope of the existing rules,
T. zhledem k tomu, že se Rada následně rozhodla neupravovat jednací řád,
S. whereas the Council subsequently chose not to amend its Rules of Procedure,
6 odst.
Recalls that
1 Smlouvy o EU) a právní řády jejích členských států, není pouze jejich závazný charakter, ale rovněž to, že jsou přijímány způsobem, který evropským občanům umožňuje přístup k informacím a aktivní účast prostřednictvím jejich zástupců na vnitrostátní (národní parlamenty a vlády) i evropské úrovni (Evropský parlament);
– under democratic legal systems such as those of the European Union (Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty) and its Member States, the essential characteristic of the law is not only that it is binding but also that it is adopted in such a manner as to allow the people of Europe to be informed and to participate through their representatives at both national (national parliaments and governments) and European (European Parliament) level;
– možnost účasti občanů by byla vážně omezena, pokud by zákonodárné orgány měly povinnost zveřejnit svá přípravná jednání a diskusi pouze tehdy, když je přijímáno konečné rozhodnutí nebo v ještě pozdější fázi rozhodovacího procesu;
– this possibility of public participation would be gravely undermined if one of the legislative authorities were required to make its preparatory deliberations and discussions accessible only when the final decision is taken or later;
– panující rozdíly mezi Parlamentem a Radou, pokud jde o transparentnost, nejsou logicky opodstatněné, zejména v rámci postupu spolurozhodování;
– continued disparities between Parliament and Council as regards standards of transparency have no logical justification, particularly in codecision procedures;
– vzhledem k tomu, že jsou přípravné práce v parlamentních výborech a rozpravy během plenárních zasedání veřejné, rozpravy o stejných otázkách na ministerské úrovni by měly být rovněž zpřístupněny veřejnosti;
– given that preparatory deliberations in parliamentary committees and debates in plenary sitting are public, debates at ministerial level on the same matters should also be public;
– význam transparentnosti je tím zjevnější, když v procesu spolurozhodování Parlament a Rada usilují o dohodu při prvním čtení v Parlamentu (což se podaří v každém třetím případě); v takových situacích může být stanovisko Parlamentu srozumitelné pouze tehdy, pokud je současně známo i většinové stanovisko Rady, její složení a argumenty, na nichž se zakládají stanoviska národních delegací;
– the need for transparency is all the more manifest when Parliament and Council are seeking an agreement in codecision at first reading in Parliament (which happens in one out of every three cases); in such situations, the position of Parliament itself can only be understood if at the same time any majority view emerging in the Council, its composition and the arguments underlying the positions of the national delegations are known,
– pokud Rada bude trvat na dodržování zásady důvěrnosti při výše zmíněných jednáních, zpochybňuje tím zásady transparentnosti a účinnosti, kterými se řídí postupy v Parlamentu;
– insistence on the confidentiality of Council deliberations in respect of negotiations of this nature is tantamount to undermining the principle of transparency and efficiency which governs Parliament’s own procedures;
– toto hledisko nebylo řádně zváženo v závěrech přijatých Radou dne 22. prosince 2005, v se nichž požaduje transparentnost v rámci svých přípravných prací pouze na začátku postupu a po konečném hlasování (pokud COREPER nerozhodne jinak);
– this aspect was not taken properly into account in the Conclusions adopted by the Council on 22 December 2005, which provide for the transparency of its preparatory deliberations only at the outset of proceedings and after the final vote (unless COREPER decides to the contrary);
4. lituje, že nedošlo v těchto oblastech k pokroku a že se Rada ve svých závěrech ze dne 22. prosince 2005 k této otázce nevyjádřila;
4 Regrets the absence of progress in these areas and the Council’s own silence on the matter in its Conclusions of 22 December 2005;
6. zdůrazňuje, že zásady víceúrovňové vlády v EU – spoluúčast, transparentnost, veřejná odpovědnost, účinnost a soudržnost – jsou zásady dobré vlády;
Points out that the principles of multi-level governance in the EU are the principles of good governance: participation, transparency, accountability, efficiency and cohesion;
11. je přesvědčen, že zpřístupněním zasedání Rady by se její činnost stala transparentnější, přiblížila by se k evropským občanům a vzrostla by důvěra veřejnosti v práci Evropské unie a jejích zástupců;
Believes that meeting in public would make the Council's work both more transparent and more relevant to European citizens and would increase the public's confidence in the way the European Union and its representatives work;
13. vyzývá dále Radu, aby provedla změnu svého jednacího řádu a změnila pracovní metody tak, aby zasedání, při nichž jedná ve své zákonodárné funkci, byla otevřená a přístupná veřejnosti;
Calls on the Council further to amend its Rules of Procedure and change its working methods so that the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity are open and accessible to the public;
21. vyzývá Radu, aby přijala všechna potřebná opatření pro zpřístupnění zasedání, na nichž jedná ve své zákonodárné funkci, veřejnosti; požaduje, aby Rada přenášela, a to také přes internet, svá veřejná zasedání a poskytovala včas termíny a programy jednání těchto zasedání a zveřejňovala z nich oficiální zápisy ve všech úředních jazycích Evropské unie;
Calls on the Council to take all measures needed to make the meetings in which it is acting in its legislative capacity open and accessible to the public; requests the Council also to broadcast, including on the internet, its public meetings and to provide the dates and agendas of those meetings in good time and issue official transcripts thereof in all official languages of the European Union;22.
22. vybízí Radu, aby přijala společný postup při zavádění kodexu řádných správních postupů Evropské unie, který byl přijat Evropským parlamentem;
Urges the Council to adopt a common approach regarding the implementation of the European Union Code of Good Administrative Behaviour adopted by the European Parliament;
At the October 2005 meeting of the Committee on Petitions the European Ombudsman - for the first time appearing at his own request (pursuant to Article 195 (3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure) - submitted his Special Report on transparency of meetings of the Council of Ministers when it acts in its legislative capacity.
At the October 2005 meeting of the Committee on Petitions the European Ombudsman - for the first time appearing at his own request (pursuant to Article 195 (3) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure) - submitted his Special Report on transparency of meetings of the Council of Ministers when it acts in its legislative capacity.
The Committee decided to request authorisation to draw up an own-initiative report on the Ombudsman's Special Report, and Mr Hammerstein Mintz was nominated rapporteur.
The Committee decided to request authorisation to draw up an own-initiative report on the Ombudsman's Special Report, and Mr Hammerstein Mintz was nominated rapporteur.
In his Special Report Mr Diamandouros found that the Council had given no valid reasons for refusing to conduct its legislative meetings in public.
In his Special Report Mr Diamandouros found that the Council had given no valid reasons for refusing to conduct its legislative meetings in public.
His recommendation was that: "The Council of the European Union should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity."
His recommendation was that: "The Council of the European Union should review its refusal to decide to meet publicly whenever it is acting in its legislative capacity."
The Ombudsman added that Parliament could consider adopting his recommendation as a resolution.
The Ombudsman added that Parliament could consider adopting his recommendation as a resolution.
The Ombudsman's inquiry into this matter is based on a complaint by Mr Elmar Brok, MEP, and a representative of the youth group of the German CDU, in which they allege that the Council's Rules of Procedure are not in conformity with Article 1 (2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997), according to which the Council and the other Community institutions and bodies must take decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizens.
The Ombudsman's inquiry into this matter is based on a complaint by Mr Elmar Brok, MEP, and a representative of the youth group of the German CDU, in which they allege that the Council's Rules of Procedure are not in conformity with Article 1 (2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997), according to which the Council and the other Community institutions and bodies must take decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizens.
The Council maintained that the degree of openness of its meetings is a political choice to be made by the Council.
The Council maintained that the degree of openness of its meetings is a political choice to be made by the Council.
The Ombudsman disagreed, on the grounds that the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, the very first article of the Common Provisions underlying the European Union, applies to the Council.
The Ombudsman disagreed, on the grounds that the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union, the very first article of the Common Provisions underlying the European Union, applies to the Council.
Although Article 207 (3) of the EC Treaty provides for the Council to adopt its own Rules of Procedure, it does not provide that the degree to which its legislative meetings should be open to the public should be regarded as a political choice and left to its discretion.
Although Article 207 (3) of the EC Treaty provides for the Council to adopt its own Rules of Procedure, it does not provide that the degree to which its legislative meetings should be open to the public should be regarded as a political choice and left to its discretion.
The Council was of the opinion that Article 1 (2) of the Treaty on European Union merely indicated that the future Union should be as open as possible.
The Council was of the opinion that Article 1 (2) of the Treaty on European Union merely indicated that the future Union should be as open as possible.
Article 207 (3) further specifies that for the purpose of Article 255 (3) of the EC Treaty the Council must lay down in its Rules the conditions under which the public shall have access to documents and define the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity, with a view to allowing greater access to Council documents.
Article 207 (3) further specifies that for the purpose of Article 255 (3) of the EC Treaty the Council must lay down in its Rules the conditions under which the public shall have access to documents and define the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity, with a view to allowing greater access to Council documents.
According to the Ombudsman the developments since 1997 should also be taken into account.
According to the Ombudsman the developments since 1997 should also be taken into account.
He pointed out that in 2000 the Council adopted new Rules of Procedure which provided for increased openness of its meetings as a legislator.
He pointed out that in 2000 the Council adopted new Rules of Procedure which provided for increased openness of its meetings as a legislator.
Thus, the Council had made clear that steps to increase the transparency of its legislative activity had to - and could be - taken.
Thus, the Council had made clear that steps to increase the transparency of its legislative activity had to - and could be - taken.
The adoption of these new Rules of Procedure also confirmed that doing so was - and is - possible under current Community law.
The adoption of these new Rules of Procedure also confirmed that doing so was - and is - possible under current Community law.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Council had failed to submit any valid reasons as to why it cannot amend its Rules of Procedure with a view to opening up the relevant meetings to the public and considered this to be an instance of maladministration.
The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Council had failed to submit any valid reasons as to why it cannot amend its Rules of Procedure with a view to opening up the relevant meetings to the public and considered this to be an instance of maladministration.
More openness in European decision-making has been demanded by the European Parliament, national parliaments, NGOs and civil society since long before the Laeken Declaration.
More openness in European decision-making has been demanded by the European Parliament, national parliaments, NGOs and civil society since long before the Laeken Declaration.
Recently there have been renewed calls for opening up Council meetings to the public, notably from a number of British MEPs, of various political groups, in a Written Declaration
Recently there have been renewed calls for opening up Council meetings to the public, notably from a number of British MEPs, of various political groups, in a Written Declaration
Written declaration 0045/2005 by Chris Davies, Nigel Farage, Timothy Kirkhope, Jean Lambert and Gary Titley on the Council of Ministers and secretive law-making. calling for the Council to apply the principles of openness and transparency to its legislative work.
Written declaration 0045/2005 by Chris Davies, Nigel Farage, Timothy Kirkhope, Jean Lambert and Gary Titley on the Council of Ministers and secretive law-making. calling for the Council to apply the principles of openness and transparency to its legislative work.
Also, the British Presidency has heeded the call for greater transparency, with Mr Blair arguing before the European Parliament that there is a "strong case" for the Council to legislate in public and suggesting considering this issue under the UK Presidency.
Also, the British Presidency has heeded the call for greater transparency, with Mr Blair arguing before the European Parliament that there is a "strong case" for the Council to legislate in public and suggesting considering this issue under the UK Presidency.
Moreover, public opinion polls and statements by NGOs, civil society and the academic world underscore citizens' wish for increased accountability of their governments regarding EU issues.
Moreover, public opinion polls and statements by NGOs, civil society and the academic world underscore citizens' wish for increased accountability of their governments regarding EU issues.
It is not only a matter of principle that legislative bodies should meet in public, it is also of direct relevance to the European Parliament as well as national parliaments in their scrutiny role.
It is not only a matter of principle that legislative bodies should meet in public, it is also of direct relevance to the European Parliament as well as national parliaments in their scrutiny role.
For national parliaments it is of the utmost importance to be able to hold their governments and individual ministers to account and this cannot be done effectively if it is not clear how ministers have acted in the Council.
For national parliaments it is of the utmost importance to be able to hold their governments and individual ministers to account and this cannot be done effectively if it is not clear how ministers have acted in the Council.
The recent developments in connection with the Constitutional Treaty have shown quite clearly that the European citizens want greater openness of European decision-making.
The recent developments in connection with the Constitutional Treaty have shown quite clearly that the European citizens want greater openness of European decision-making.
Meeting in public would make the Council's work both more transparent and more relevant to citizens.
Meeting in public would make the Council's work both more transparent and more relevant to citizens.
The implications of openness could be far-reaching and will change the character of the Council profoundly.
The implications of openness could be far-reaching and will change the character of the Council profoundly.