natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In his complaint to the Ombudsman of 17 May 2005, the complainant alleged that by failing either to grant total or partial access to all the documents requested, or to give reasons for refusing access to these documents, the Council had not fully complied with its obligations under Regulation No 1049/2001.
V s_27a_17nosti ombudsmanovi zo 17. mája 2005 s_27a_17ovate_24 uviedol, _17e neposkytnutím úplného alebo _20iasto_20ného prístupu ku v_15etk_18m vy_17iadan_18m dokumentom alebo nezdôvodnením zamietnutia prístupu k t_18mto dokumentom si Rada nesplnila v_15etky svoje povinnosti, ktoré jej vypl_18vajú z nariadenia _20.
He moreover alleged that the Council had failed to consider whether it had to give total or partial access to any sensitive documents, and to give reasons why it had decided to deny access to any such documents.
1049/2001. _21alej uviedol, _17e Rada nezvá_17ila, _20i musí úplne alebo _20iasto_20ne sprístupni_27 akéko_24vek citlivé dokumenty a zdôvodni_27, pre_20o sa rozhodla zamietnu_27 prístup k tak_18mto dokumentom.
By not addressing the specific arguments submitted to it, the Council had acted in bad faith and had failed to give proper consideration to the initial request and the confirmatory application.
T_18m, _17e sa Rada nezaoberala konkrétnymi argumentmi, ktoré jej boli predlo_17ené, konala mala fide a dostato_20ne sa nezaoberala prvotnou ani opakovanou _17iados_27ou.
In its opinion on this complaint of 27 July 2005, the Council pointed out that under the current rules, all texts submitted to the Council or to one of its preparatory bodies which (a) are to serve as a basis for deliberations, (b) influence the decisionmaking process, or (c) reflect the progress made on a given subject, must be distributed as "standard" ("ST") documents.
V stanovisku z 27. júla 2005 k tejto s_27a_17nosti Rada uviedla, _17e pod_24a sú_20asn_18ch predpisov musia by_27 v_15etky texty predlo_17ené Rade alebo jednému z jej prípravn_18ch orgánov, ktoré a) majú slú_17i_27 ako podklad rokovaní, b) majú vplyv na rozhodovací proces alebo c) odzrkad_24ujú pokrok dosiahnut_18 v danom spise, distribuované ako „_15tandardné“ („ST“) dokumenty.
Consequently, they are automatically tracked in the Council's document production system and (unless they are not registered in accordance with Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001) will be listed automatically on the Council's Register.
Automaticky sa tak zaradia do produk_20ného systému dokumentov Rady a (ak nespadajú pod _20lánok 9 ods. 3 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001) automaticky sa uvedú do registra Rady.
Under the current rules, so-called "unnumbered" ("SN") documents may thus no longer be used for such purposes.
Pod_24a sú_20asn_18ch predpisov sa na tieto ú_20ely nesmú viac pou_17íva_27 takzvané „ne_20íslované“ („SN“) dokumenty.
Such documents are reserved exclusively for internal use within the General Secretariat for administrative purposes, such as translation.
Tieto dokumenty sú vyhradené v_18lu_20ne na vnútorné administratívne ú_20ely generálneho sekretariátu, ako napr. preklad.
They are not to be distributed to members of the Council or to members of its preparatory bodies.
Nie sú ur_20ené na distribúciu _20lenom Rady ani _20lenom jej prípravn_18ch orgánov.
However, this system was not in force at the time when the different versions of document SN 4438/01 had been produced.
Tento systém v_15ak neplatil v _20ase, ke_22 vznikali rôzne verzie dokumentu SN 4438/01.
In 2001, it was still possible to produce "SN" documents for distribution to delegations.
V roku 2001 bolo e_15te mo_17né pripravova_27 dokumenty „SN“, ktoré sa distribuovali delegáciám.
Such "SN" documents were distributed by the department which authored them rather than by the centralised document management department.
Takéto dokumenty „SN“ distribuovalo zvy_20ajne oddelenie, ktoré ich pripravilo, a nie oddelenie pre centrálne riadenie dokumentov.
Following renewed research, the Council had discovered that, contrary to initial evidence, more revisions of document SN 4438/01, had been produced and distributed within Council's preparatory bodies.
Na základe nového preskúmania Rada zistila, _17e v rozpore s po_20iato_20n_18mi dôkazmi vzniklo a prípravn_18m orgánom Rady sa rozdistribuovalo viac revízií dokumentu SN 4438/01.
These versions had not been loaded onto the automated circuit which enables all Council documents to be registered and saved in the electronic archive of the institution.
Tieto verzie sa nezaradili do automatického systému, ktor_18 umo_17_25uje evidovanie a ulo_17enie v_15etk_18ch dokumentov Rady v elektronickom archíve in_15titúcie.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence that such revisions had been electronically recorded and validated, they were considered void.
Ke_22_17e neexistovali dôkazy o tom, _17e tieto revízie boli elektronicky evidované a validované, pova_17ovali sa za neplatné.
The Council apologised to the complainant for this clerical error.
Rada sa s_27a_17ovate_24ovi za túto úradnú chybu ospravedlnila.
It granted full access to the revised versions REV 6 to REV 10 and partial access to versions REV 2 and REV 3 of document SN 4438/01.
V plnom rozsahu sprístupnila revidované verzie REV 6 a_17 REV 10 a _20iasto_20ne verzie REV 2 a REV 3 dokumentu SN 4438/01.
As regards the alleged failure to grant access to sensitive documents, the Council confirmed that no relevant sensitive documents existed.
Pokia_24 ide o údajné neposkytnutie prístupu k citliv_18m dokumentom, Rada potvrdila, _17e neexistujú _17iadne relevantné citlivé dokumenty.
On 9 November 2005, the Ombudsman closed the case, making a critical remark about the way the complainant's request for access to documents had been dealt with in the first place, but also establishing that there was no evidence to support the complainant's view that the Council had acted in bad faith.
Ombudsman 9. novembra 2005 tento prípad uzavrel, pri_20om kriticky upozornil predov_15etk_18m na spôsob, ak_18m sa nakladalo so s_27a_17ovate_24ovou _17iados_27ou o prístup k dokumentom, no zárove_25 uviedol, _17e ni_20 nepotvrdzuje s_27a_17ovate_24ov názor, _17e Rada konala mala fide.
As for the alleged failure to grant access to sensitive documents, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant had not submitted any evidence to rebut the Council's statement that no sensitive documents of relevance to the subject matter concerned by the complainant's request did exist, and that there were therefore no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.
Pokia_24 ide o údajné neposkytnutie prístupu k citliv_18m dokumentom, pod_24a ombudsmana s_27a_17ovate_24 nepredlo_17il dôkazy, ktoré by vyvrátili stanovisko Rady, _17e neexistujú _17iadne citlivé dokumenty súvisiace s danou otázkou, ktor_18ch sa t_18kala po_17iadavka s_27a_17ovate_24a, a preto neexistuje dôvod _22alej tento aspekt prípadu vy_15etrova_27.
Rulings given in 2005 under the rules on access to documents
Rozhodnutia z roku 2005 pod_14a predpisov o prístupe k dokumentom
In 2005, three rulings were given by the Court of First Instance in cases concerning access to Council documents.
V roku 2005 rozhodol Súd prvého stup_25a vo veciach, ktoré sa t_18kali prístupu k dokumentom Rady, trikrát.
On 26 April 2005, the Court of First Instance handed down its judgment in the joint cases
Súd prvého stup_25a 26. apríla 2005 vyniesol rozsudok v spojen_18ch veciach T-110/03, T-150/03 a
April and 14 July 2005 were given in cases T-376/03 and T-371/03, which both relate to the application of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of the Community institutions.
Zvy_15né dve rozhodnutia z 5. apríla a 14. júla 2005 boli prijaté vo veciach T-376/03 a T-371/03, ktoré súvisia s uplat_25ovaním _20lánku 6 prílohy III k slu_17obnému poriadku in_15titúcií Spolo_20enstva.
The applicants had submitted, inter alia, that the principles of transparency and access to documents laid down in Article 255(1) of the EC Treaty had been violated 25.
25 prístupu k dokumentom ustanovené v _20lánku 255 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES
The above-mentioned provisions on transparency and access to documents could therefore not be opposed to the principle laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which states that "the proceedings of the Selection Board shall be secret".
Pokia_24 ide o _20asti rozhodnutí vo veciach T-376/03 a T-371/03, ktoré majú osobitn_18 v_18znam pre interpretáciu _20lánku 18 nariadenia _20.
This principle had been established with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings 26.
1049/2001, Súd zaujal stanovisko, _17e právo prístupu k dokumentom Rady ustanovené v _20lánku 255 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES a nariadení _20.
Pending Court cases concerning Council decisions to refuse access to documents
1049/2001 sa mô_17e obmedzi_27 alebo uprie_27 – v súlade so zásadou, pod_24a ktorej má osobitn_18 predpis prednos_27 pred v_15eobecn_18m (lex specialis derogat legi generali) – ak pre konkrétne okolnosti platia osobitné predpisy.
Four cases in which the legality of Council decisions refusing access on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 is contested are currently pending before the Community Courts, two of which were already mentioned in the Council's previous report on access to documents, to which the reader is
Uvedené ustanovenia o transparentnosti a prístupe k dokumentom preto nemusia protire_20i_27 zásade ustanovenej v _20lánku 6 prílohy III k slu_17obnému poriadku, pod_24a ktorej „je rokovanie v_11berovej komisie tajné".
27 referred
Táto zásada bola ustanovená preto, aby sa zaru_20ila nezávislos_27 v_18berov_18ch komisií a
Since the judgment in joint cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 was already dealt with at some length in the Council's previous report on access to documents, the reader is referred to the summary of this ruling set out on pages 31 and 32 of the Council Annual report - 2004.
Ke_22_17e rozsudkom v spojen_18ch veciach T-110/03, T-150/03 a T-405/03 sa u_17 do istej miery zaoberala predchádzajúca správa Rady o prístupe k dokumentom, _20itate_24 sa odkazuje na zhrnutie tohto rozhodnutia na stranách 31 a 32 v_18ro_20nej správy Rady – 2004.
It should be noted, however, that this case is currently the subject of an appeal to the Court of Justice (Case C-266/05 P).
Je v_15ak potrebné poznamena_27, _17e proti tomuto rozsudku bolo podané odvolanie na Súdny dvor (vec C-266/05 P).
See the rulings in cases T-376/03, Hendrickx v. Council, and T-371/03, Le Voci v. Council.
Pozri rozhodnutia vo veciach T-376/03, Hendrickx/ Rada, a T-371/03, Le Voci/Rada.
See judgment in case T-376/03, paragraphs 55-57, and in case T-371/03, paragraphs 120-124.
Pozri rozsudok vo veci T-376/03, odseky 55 – 57, a vo veci T-371/03, odseky 120 – 124.
See the summary of pending cases T-3/00, Pitsiorlas v. Council and ECB, and T-264/94, WWF-EPO v. Council, in the Council's Annual Report on access to documents – 2004, pp. 32 and 33.
Pozri zhrnutie prebiehajúcich vecí T-3/00, Pitsiorlas/ Rada a ECB, a T-264/04, WWF-EPO/ Rada, vo v_18ro_20nej správe Rady o prístupe k dokumentom – 2004, s. 32 a 33.
In cases C-39/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v. Council, and C52/05 P, Maurizio Turco v. Council, the applicants appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03
Vo veciach C-39/05 P, _8védske krá_14ovstvo/ Rada a C-52/05 P, Maurizio Turco/ Rada, sa navrhovatelia odvolali proti rozsudku Súdu prvého stup_25a z 23. novembra 2004 vo veci T-84/03 (Maurizio Turco/
In the fifth case, C-266/05 P, José María Sison has brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, referred to
V piatom prípade, C-266/05 P, sa José María Sison odvolal proti rozsudku Súdu prvého stup_25a z 26. apríla 2005 v uveden_18ch spojen_18ch veciach T-110/03, T-150/03 a T-405/0329.
Pending Court cases concerning Commission decisions to refuse access to documents in which the Council is intervening as third party.
Prebiehajúce súdne konania t_11kajúce sa rozhodnutí Komisie o zamietnutí prístupu k dokumentom, do ktor_11ch Rada vstupuje ako tretia strana
Lastly, the Council intervened in two cases, T-5/05, Verband der Internationale Caterer in Deutschland e.V. v. Commission, and T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo v. Commission, where the applicants have introduced actions for the annulment of Commission decisions refusing access to documents.
Napokon, Rada zasiahla vo dvoch veciach, T-5/05, Verband der Internationale Caterer in Deutschland e.V./Komisia, a T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo/ Komisia, v ktor_18ch navrhovatelia _17iadali, aby boli rozhodnutia Komisie o zamietnutí prístupu k dokumentom vyhlásené za neplatné.
In both cases, access was refused on the basis of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001, according to which a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement, and in both cases the applicants suggested that this provision is illegal.
V oboch prípadoch sa prístup zamietol na základe _20lánku 4 ods. 5 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001, pod_24a ktorého _20lensk_18 _15tát mô_17e po_17iada_27 in_15titúciu, aby nesprístupnila dokument pochádzajúci z tohto _20lenského _15tátu bez jeho predchádzajúceho súhlasu, a v oboch prípadoch navrhovatelia uviedli, _17e toto ustanovenie je nezákonné.
Since this claim calls the validity of an act of the Council into question, it necessitates the Council's intervention as third party.
Ke_22_17e táto s_27a_17nos_27 spochyb_25uje platnos_27 právneho aktu Rady, vy_17aduje si vstup Rady do konania ako tretej strany.
See judgment in case T-84/03 (mentioned in the Council's Annual Report for 2004, pp. 30-31), paragraphs 62 and following.
Pozri rozsudok vo veci T-84/03 (spomenut_18 vo v_18ro_20nej správe Rady za rok 2004, s. 30 – 31), odseky 63 a _22alej.
In his application in appeal, Mr Turco argues, inter alia, that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied the term "legal advice" in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and that the Court erred in qualifying the legal opinion at issue as "legal advice", whereas the Kingdom of Sweden argues in its application that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that there is a "general secrecy requirement" for legal service opinions in legislative matters.
Vo svojom odvolaní Turco okrem iného uvádza, _17e Súd prvého stup_25a nesprávne interpretoval a uplatnil pojem „právne poradenstvo“ z _20lánku 4 ods. 2 nariadenia 1049/2001 a _17e nesprávne ozna_20il dané právne stanovisko ako „právne poradenstvo“, k_18m _14védske krá_24ovstvo vo svojom odvolaní uvádza, _17e Súd prvého stup_25a nesprávne rozhodol, _17e pre stanoviská právneho servisu v legislatívnych zále_17itostiach platí „v_15eobecná povinnos_27 zachovania tajomstva“.
In this case, Mr Sison notably argues that the Court of First Instance unduly limited the scope of its review of the legality of the Council decision refusing access to the requested documents without responding to the applicant's arguments and his particular situation.
V tejto veci Sison konkrétne uvádza, _17e Súd prvého stup_25a nedostato_20ne preskúmal zákonnos_27 rozhodnutia Rady zamietnu_27 prístup k vy_17iadan_18m dokumentom bez zoh_24adnenia argumentov _17iadate_24a a jeho osobitnej situácie.
The opinion of the Advocate-General of the Court concerning this case was delivered on 22 June 2006.
Generálny advokát súdu k tejto veci zaujal stanovisko 22. júna 2006.
The Council's experience in implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 in 2005 highlights the importance of its public register as a search tool for members of the public seeking to keep abreast of developments at Community level.
Skúsenosti Rady s vykonávaním nariadenia _20. 1049/2005 v roku 2005 ukazujú, ak_18 v_18znam má jej verejn_18 register ako nástroj vyh_24adávania pre zástupcov verejnosti, ktorí sa usilujú dr_17a_27 krok s v_18vojom na úrovni Spolo_20enstva.
As stated in the first part of this report the number of visits rose by nearly 16 % in 2005 (1 064 039 visits in 2005 against 919 584 in 2004); this was the third successive annual increase.
Ako bolo uvedené v prvej _20asti tejto správy po_20et náv_15tev sa v roku zv_18_15il takmer o 16 % (1 064 039 náv_15tev v roku 2005 oproti 919 584 v roku 2004); ide o nárast tretí rok za sebou.
68,6 % of the Council documents produced in 2005 – i.e. 77 832 of the 113 398 new documents listed in the register – were made directly accessible to the public as soon as they were circulated.
68,6 % dokumentov Rady, ktoré vznikli v roku 2005 – t. j. 77 832 z 113 398 nov_18ch dokumentov uveden_18ch v registri – bolo priamo sprístupnen_18ch ihne_22 po ich rozoslaní. Navy_15e je od 1. februára 2004 ka_17d_18 nov_18 dokument, ktor_18 Rada sprístupnila _20iasto_20ne, dostupn_18 online.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, to learn that, after rising steadily between 1999 (when the Council's public register was introduced) and 2003, the number of requests for access fell substantially
Nemalo by preto prekvapova_27, _17e po rovnomernom náraste medzi rokom 1999, ke_22 verejn_18 register
30 in 2004 and 2005
Rady vznikol, a 2003 sa po_20et _17iadostí o prístup v rokoch 2004 a 2005 v_18razne zní_17il
It should also be noted that requests for access relate almost exclusively to documents which are listed but not directly accessible via the register.
Je tie_17 potrebné poznamena_27, _17e _17iadosti o prístup sa takmer v_18lu_20ne t_18kajú dokumentov, ktoré sú v registri uvedené, ale nie sú v _25om priamo prístupné.
Quite a few of the documents requested in 2005 were classified (124 as CONFIDENTIEL UE and 469 as RESTREINT UE); the often highly complex process of examining such documents represents an additional workload not only for the Council staff dealing with the requests as soon as they are received, but also for officials in the various departments which produced the documents, who in many cases must themselves examine the requested documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001.
V_18razná _20as_27 dokumentov vy_17iadan_18ch v roku 2005 boli utajované dokumenty (124 so stup_25om utajenia CONFIDENTIEL UE a 469 so stup_25om utajenia RESTREINT UE); _20asto ve_24mi zlo_17it_18 proces skúmania tak_18chto dokumentov predstavuje dodato_20nú pracovnú zá_27a_17 nielen pre zamestnancov Rady, ktorí sa t_18mito _17iados_27ami zaoberajú ihne_22 po ich doru_20ení, ale aj pre pracovníkov rozli_20n_18ch oddelení, ktorí dokumenty pripravujú a ktorí v mnoh_18ch prípadoch musia sami vy_17iadané dokumenty preskúma_27 na základe nariadenia _20. 1049/2001.
That said, despite the increasingly complex nature of the dossiers to be examined, the General Secretariat of the Council is coping with the ensuing growing administrative burden, while meeting the time-limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Napriek _20oraz zlo_17itej_15ej povahe spisov, ktoré sa musia preskúma_27, Generálny sekretariát Rady zvláda rastúce administratívne za_27a_17enie, ktoré z toho vypl_18va, v súlade s lehotami ustanoven_18mi v nariadení (ES) _20. 1049/2001.
By way of illustration, in 2005 processing
Na ilustráciu, v roku 2005 trvalo spracovanie prvotn_18ch _17iadostí priemerne 13
In respect of confirmatory applications, time for initial requests was on average 13 working days which are examined by the Working Party on Information before being submitted to Coreper and the Council for adoption, the average was 26 working days in 2005, compared to 24 working days in 2004.
V prípade opakovan_18ch _17iadostí, ktoré pred ich predlo_17ením Coreper-u a Rade na pracovn_18ch dní prijatie skúma pracovná skupina pre informácie, trvalo spracovanie v roku 2005 priemerne 26 pracovn_18ch dní oproti 24 pracovn_18m d_25om v roku 2004.
However, in the first half of 2006 there was again a sharp increase in the number of applications for access and the number of documents requested (over 1 350 applications relating to more than 5 000 documents over the six month period).
V prvej polovici roku 2006 sa v_15ak po_20et _17iadostí o prístup a po_20et vy_17iadan_18ch dokumentov opä_27 prudko zv_18_15il (vy_15e 1350 _17iadostí súvisiacich s vy_15e 5000 dokumentmi za _15es_27 mesiacov).
Following an increase in staff numbers in the Transparency, Access to Documents and Information to the Public Department at the beginning of 2006, the average processing time has been brought down to 11 days despite the sharp rise in the number of applications in the first six months of 2006.
Po zv_18_15ení po_20tu zamestnancov odboru pre transparentnos_27, prístup k dokumentom a informovanie verejnosti za_20iatkom roka 2006 sa zní_17il priemern_18 po_20et dní potrebn_18ch na spracovanie _17iadosti na 11, a to aj napriek prudkému nárastu _17iadostí v prv_18ch _15iestich mesiacoch roka 2006.
In this regard, the contribution made by the Working Party on Information to the processing of confirmatory applications must be noted.
V tejto súvislosti je potrebné poukáza_27 na podiel pracovnej skupiny pre informácie na spracovaní opakovan_18ch _17iadostí.
The Working Party met on 20 occasions in 2005.
Pracovná skupina sa v roku 2005 stretla 20-krát.
Its main tasks include examining documents in respect of which a confirmatory application has been made, and examining and finalising the draft replies to such applications, which in a number of cases deal with complex issues relating to public safety, defence and military affairs, or international relations.
Medzi jej hlavné úlohy patrí skúmanie dokumentov, v súvislosti s ktor_18mi bola predlo_17ená opakovaná _17iados_27, ako aj skúmanie a finalizácia návrhov odpovedí na takéto _17iadosti, ktoré sa _20asto zaoberajú zlo_17it_18mi otázkami súvisiacimi s verejnou bezpe_20nos_27ou, obranou a vojensk_18mi zále_17itos_27ami alebo medzinárodn_18mi vz_27ahmi.
The rate of access to Council documents in 2005 fell in comparison to 2004 (80,6 % in 2005 as against 85,7 % in 2004).
Pomer sprístupnen_18ch dokumentov Rady sa v roku 2005 oproti roku 2004 prudko zní_17il (80,6 % v roku 2005 oproti 85,7 % v roku 2004).
However, this must be seen in the light of the fact that a large number of documents (77 832 in 2005 against 68 996 in 2004) were made directly accessible to the public via the register as soon as they were circulated.
Je v_15ak pritom potrebné vzia_27 do úvahy, _17e ve_24k_18 po_20et dokumentov (77 832 v roku 2005 oproti 68 996 v roku 2004) bol verejnosti sprístupnen_18 priamo prostredníctvom registra ihne_22 po ich rozoslaní.
In conclusion, both the analysis of the processing of requests for access and the public's use of the register of Council documents suggest that the aims set by the Treaties and by Regulation No 1049/2001 continued to be achieved in 2005.
Na záver mo_17no kon_15tatova_27, _17e z anal_18zy spracovania _17iadostí o prístup a z verejného vyu_17ívania registra dokumentov Rady vypl_18va, _17e ciele stanovené zmluvami a nariadením _20. 1049/2001 sa v roku 2005 plnili.
STATISTICS ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO COUNCIL DOCUMENTS Situation on 11/07/2006
_12TATISTIKA O PRÍSTUPE VEREJNOSTI K DOKUMENTOM RADY Situácia k 11. júlu 2006
Number of applications pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 2002 2003 2004
Po_18et _14iadostí pod_20a nariadenia _18. 1049/2001 2002 2003
Documents released by the General Secretariat of the Council at the initial stage 2002 2003 2004 2005
Dokumenty sprístupnené Generálnym sekretariátom Rady na základe prvotnej _14iadosti 2002 2003 2004 2005
Number of confirmatory applications (confirmatory applications may be made if initial application is refused)
Po_18et opakovan_16ch _14iadostí (opakované _17iadosti mo_17no predlo_17i_27 v prípade zamietnutia prvotnej _17iadosti)
Number of documents considered by the Council following confirmatory applications + number of documents released
Po_18et dokumentov preskúman_16ch Radou na základe opakovan_16ch _14iadostí + po_18et sprístupnen_16ch dokumentov
Rate of document released for the procedure as a whole 322002 2003 2004
Celkov_16 podiel sprístupnen_16ch dokumentov v rámci postupu322002 2003 2004
Number of documents referred to in the public Register + number of public/downloadable documents
Po_18et dokumentov uveden_16ch vo verejnom registri + po_18et verejn_16ch/stiahnute_20n_16ch dokumentov