natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In 2005 protection of the public interest as regards international relations was invoked in 20,3 % of cases (21,2 % in 2004), and protection of the public interest as regards defence and military matters in 5,7 % of cases (25,9 % in 2004).
Ochrana verejného záujmu so zrete_24om na medzinárodné vz_27ahy sa v roku 2005 uviedla ako dôvod zamietnutia v 20,3 % prípadov (21,2 % v roku 2004) a ochrana verejného záujmu so zrete_24om na obranu a vojenské zále_17itosti v 5,7 % prípadov (25,9 % v roku 2004).
The situation regarding use of the protection of the decisionmaking process as grounds for refusing access was unchanged compared with the previous year: in 2005 it was used in 11,4 % of cases (11,8 % in 2004).
Po_20et zamietnutí prístupu odôvodnen_18ch ochranou rozhodovacieho procesu sa oproti predchádzajúcemu roku takmer nezmenil: 11,4 % prípadov v roku 2005 (11,8 % v roku 2004).
Finally, in 13 % of refusals protection of the decisionmaking process was associated with other grounds for refusal, such as protection of the public interest as regards public security (3,3 % of cases).
Napokon, pri 13 % zamietnutí sa ako dôvod uviedla ochrana rozhodovacieho procesu spolu s in_18mi dôvodmi, ako napr. ochranou verejného záujmu so zrete_24om na verejnú bezpe_20nos_27 (3,3 % prípadov).
Specific exception for legal advice
Osobitná v_16nimka na ochranu právneho poradenstva
The protection of court proceedings and legal advice (exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001) was invoked as grounds in the initial phase in a mere 1,8 % of refusals in 2005 (8,8 % in 2004).
Ochrana súdneho konania a právneho poradenstva (v_18nimka ustanovená v druhej zará_17ke _20lánku 4 ods. 2 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001) sa v roku 2005 uviedla ako dôvod zamietnutia prvotnej _17iadosti len v 1,8 % prípadov (8,8 % v roku 2004).
It was not invoked at all at the confirmatory stage during the period under consideration, whereas it had been the grounds for 4,7 % of refusals in 2004.
V sledovanom období sa ako dôvod zamietnutia opakovanej _17iadosti neuviedla ani raz, k_18m v roku 2004 to bolo v 4,7 % zamietnutí.
While this exception is not the Council's most frequently invoked grounds for refusal, its importance for the proper functioning and effectiveness of the institution's work should nevertheless be stressed 13.
Hoci táto v_18nimka nie je v Rade naj_20astej_15ie uvádzan_18m dôvodom zamietnutia, mal by sa vyzdvihnú_27 jej v_18znam pre riadne fungovanie a ú_20innos_27 práce in_15titúcie13.
The practice is as far as possible to grant partial access, in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to documents containing Council Legal Service opinions and contributions by the Legal Service to the proceedings of the Council and its preparatory bodies.
V súlade s _20lánkom 4 ods. 6 nariadenia (ES) _20.
Thus the factual content of such documents is released to the applicants, while the confidentiality of legal opinions as such is safeguarded.
1049/2001 sa dokumenty, ktoré obsahujú stanoviská právneho servisu Rady a príspevky právneho servisu k rokovaniam Rady a jej prípravn_18ch orgánov, v _20o najvä_20_15ej miere sprístup_25ujú _20iasto_20ne. _16iadate_24om sa sprístupní vecn_18 obsah dokumentu, pri_20om sa zachová dôvernos_27 samotn_18ch právnych stanovísk.
On the basis of case-law established over several years 14, and confirmed in 2004 by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in the Turco case 15, the Council considers that the independent advice provided for the Council by the Legal Service allows the Council to ensure that its acts comply with Community law and to pursue the discussion on the legal aspects of a dossier.
Na základe judikatúry z nieko_24k_18ch rokov14, ktorú v roku 2004 potvrdilo rozhodnutie Súdu prvého stup_25a rozsudkom vo veci Turco15, sa Rada domnieva, _17e nezávislé právne poradenstvo, ktoré jej poskytuje právny servis, jej umo_17_25uje dosiahnu_27 súlad jej aktov s právom Spolo_20enstva a vies_27 diskusiu o právnych aspektoch spisu.
If the Council were to lose that instrument, the efficiency of its work would be compromised.
Ak by Rada pri_15la o tento nástroj, malo by to nepriazniv_18 vplyv na efektivitu jej práce.
This is why it is in the public interest that the Council should have access to independent legal advice.
Je preto vo verejnom záujme, aby mala Rada prístup k nezávislému právnemu poradenstvu.
In this connection, see the order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 1998 in Case T-610/97 R, Carlsen and others v. Council, ECR 1998, p.
V tejto súvislosti pozri príkaz Súdu prvého stup_25a z 3. marca 1998 vo veci T-610/97 R, Carlsen a iní/ Rada, Zb. 1998, s.
II-485, paragraphs 45 to 47, and its ruling of 8 November 2000 in case T-44/97, Ghignone and others v. Council, ECR 2000, p.
II-485, odseky 45 a_17 47, a jeho rozhodnutie z 8. novembra 2000 vo veci T-44/97, Ghignone a iní/ Rada, Zb. 2000, s.
II-1023, paragraphs 47 and 48.
II-1023, odseky 47 a 48.
This case-law was cited by the Court in its order of 23 October 2002 in case C-445/00, Austria v. Council, paragraph 12.
Túto judikatúru citoval súd vo svojom príkaze z 23. októbra 2002 vo veci C-445/00, Rakúsko/ Rada, odsek 12.
See judgment by the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Maurizio Turco v. Council (not yet published in the ECR), paragraphs 62 et seq.
Pozri rozsudok Súdu prvého stup_25a z 23. novembra 2004 vo veci T-84/03 Maurizio Turco/ Rada (zatia_24 neuverejnen_18 v zbierke), odseky 62 a _22alej.
This judgement is currently under appeal (Cases C-39/05 P and C52/05 P).
Na tento rozsudok sa podalo odvolanie (veci C-39/05 P a C-52/05 P).
An Interinstitutional Committee to examine best practice, address possible conflicts and discuss future developments on public access to documents was established in 2002 under Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Pod_24a _20lánku 15 ods. 2 nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/2001 bol v roku 2002 zriaden_18 medzii_15titucionálny v_18bor, ktorého úlohou je skúma_27 najlep_15ie postupy, rie_15i_27 mo_17né spory a diskutova_27 o budúcom v_18voji v oblasti prístupu verejnosti k dokumentom.
The Interinstitutional Committee met once at Secretary-General level (Council, Parliament and Commission) during the reference period.
Medziin_15titucionálny v_18bor po_20as referen_20ného obdobia zasadal raz na úrovni generálnych tajomníkov (Rady, Parlamentu a Komisie).
Several meetings between the Council, Parliament and Commission departments responsible for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were also held in 2005.
V roku 2005 sa tie_17 uskuto_20nilo nieko_24ko zasadnutí oddelení Rady, Parlamentu a Komisie zodpovedn_18ch za uplat_25ovanie nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/2001.
The main items discussed at the meeting of the Secretaries-General of the three institutions on 11 November 2005 were: the future revision of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the light of the Commission's evaluation report (COM(2004) 45), the establishment of the new Commission register of comitology, and the scope for improving the institutions' document registers in order to make them more user-friendly and accessible to the general public.
Hlavné otázky, o ktor_18ch sa diskutovalo na zasadnutí generálnych tajomníkov uveden_18ch troch in_15titúcií 11. novembra 2005, boli: budúca revízia nariadenia _20. 1049/2001 so zrete_24om na hodnotiacu správu Komisie (KOM(2004) 45), zriadenie nového registra komitológie Komisiou a mo_17nos_27 zlep_15enia registrov dokumentov in_15titúcií, aby boli u_17ívate_24sky prístupnej_15ie a dostupné _15irokej verejnosti.
At the end of its meeting the Interinstitutional Committee decided to endorse the Commission's evaluation report (COM(2004) 45) and to set up a technical working party charged with looking critically at the sites of the three registers, with the remit to explore possible improvements to and the harmonisation and interlinking of the three sites.
Na konci svojho zasadnutia sa medziin_15titucionálny v_18bor rozhodol schváli_27 hodnotiacu správu Komisie (KOM(2004) 45) a zriadi_27 odbornú pracovnú skupinu poverenú kritick_18m posúdením stránok uveden_18ch troch registrov a preskúmaním ich mo_17ného zlep_15enia, harmonizácie a vzájomného prepojenia.
Interinstitutional dialogue on the various aspects of transparency
Medziin_9titucionálny dialóg o rôznych aspektoch transparentnosti
As part of the interinstitutional dialogue on the various aspects of transparency a meeting was held on 23 November 2005 between the Secretaries-Generals of the European institutions and the members of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
V rámci medziin_15titucionálneho dialógu o rôznych aspektoch transparentnosti sa 23. novembra 2005 uskuto_20nilo zasadnutie generálnych tajomníkov európskych in_15titúcií a _20lenov v_18boru Európskeho parlamentu pre ob_20ianske slobody, spravodlivos_27 a vnútorné veci.
At that meeting, the Secretaries-General took stock of the measures taken by their institutions with regard to document access and to public access to the decisionmaking process and the related issues.
Na tomto zasadnutí generálni tajomníci zhodnotili opatrenia, ktoré ich in_15titúcie prijali v oblasti prístupu k dokumentom a prístupu verejnosti k rozhodovaciemu procesu a súvisiacimi otázkami.
Mention was also made of a series of practical measures (taken or planned) designed to enable the public to identify readily online the preparatory documents of the Community institutions, where these are acting in a legislative capacity.
Spomenul sa tie_17 súbor praktick_18ch opatrení (prijat_18ch alebo plánovan_18ch), ktoré majú verejnosti umo_17ni_27 _24ahko na internete nájs_27 prípravné dokumenty in_15titúcií Spolo_20enstva, ke_22 tieto in_15titúcie konajú vo svojej legislatívnej funkcii.
Council conclusions of 21 December 2005 on improving openness and transparency in the Council
Závery Rady z 21. decembra 2005 o zlep_9ení otvorenosti a transparentnosti Rady
The question of public access to the Council's deliberations on legislative acts was central to the interinstitutional dialogue throughout 2005.
Prístup verejnosti k rokovaniam Rady o legislatívnych aktoch bol hlavnou otázkou medziin_15titucionálneho dialógu v roku 2005.
The measures taken by the Council and listed in its conclusions of 21 December 2005 16 and the overall policy on transparency adopted by the European Council in June 2006 17 reflect the importance that the Community institutions henceforward attach to the principle of public access to the decisionmaking process.
Opatrenia, ktoré Rada prijala a ktoré sú uvedené v jej záveroch z 21. decembra 200516, ako aj celková politika v oblasti transparentnosti, ktorú prijala Európska rada v júni 200617, odrá_17ajú v_18znam, ak_18 in_15titúcie Spolo_20enstva na_22alej pripisujú zásade prístupu verejnosti k rozhodovaciemu procesu.
Under the measures adopted by the Council in December 2005 and by the European Council in June 2006 all Council deliberations on legislative acts to be adopted by co-decision are open to the public, as are the votes and the explanation of votes by Council members.
V dôsledku opatrení, ktoré prijala Rada v decembri 2005 a Európska rada v júni 2006, sú v_15etky rokovania Rady o legislatívnych aktoch, ktoré sa majú prija_27 spolurozhodovaním, verejné, podobne ako hlasovanie a vysvetlenie hlasovania _20lenov Rady. Znamená to, _17e v_15etky dokumenty spomenuté v
This means that all documents mentioned on the agenda for a Council meeting open to the public are published before that Council meeting is held18.
programe verejného zasadnutia Rady sa uverej_25ujú e_15te pred t_18mto zasadnutím
In addition, in order to ensure that the general public has as wide an access as possible, from the summer of 2006 all public debates and deliberations, as well as public votes on co-decision items, will be broadcast in all languages through video-streaming on the Council's internet website.
V záujme zabezpe_20enia _20o najrozsiahlej_15ieho prístupu _15irokej verejnosti sa tie_17 od leta 2006 budú v_15etky verejné diskusie a rokovania, ako aj verejné hlasovania o bodoch, ktoré podliehajú spolurozhodovaniu, vysiela_27 vo v_15etk_18ch jazykoch videoprenosom na internetovej stránke Rady.
COMPLAINTS LODGED LEGAL ACTION TAKEN
S_21A_13NOSTI PODANÉ EURÓPSKEMU OMBUDSMANOVI A SÚDNE _13ALOBY
The following section of this report refers to a number of complaints lodged with the European Ombudsman in cases where Regulation No 1049/2001 was applied.
Táto _20as_27 správy sa zaoberá nieko_24k_18mi s_27a_17nos_27ami podan_18mi európskemu ombudsmanovi, pri ktor_18ch sa uplatnilo nariadenie _20. 1049/2001.
This complaint did not concern the right of access to documents in the strict sense, but rather the public nature of the Council's decisionmaking process in the broad sense of the term 20.
Táto s_27a_17nos_27 sa net_18kala priamo práva na prístup k dokumentom, ale skôr verejnej povahy rozhodovacieho procesu Rady v _15ir_15om zmysle20.
By letter dated 18 September 2003 addressed to the Secretary-General/High Representative, the complainants suggested that the Council's Rules of Procedure be amended, in order to ensure that sessions of the Council, when it convened in its capacity as legislator, were held in public.
V liste z 18. septembra 2003 generálnemu tajomníkovi/vysokému splnomocnencovi s_27a_17ovatelia uviedli, _17e rokovací poriadok Rady by sa mal zmeni_27 a doplni_27 tak, aby boli zasadnutia Rady v jej legislatívnej funkcii verejné.
In his reply dated 19 November 2003, the Secretary-General recalled that the provisions laid down in Article 8 of the Council's Rules of Procedure reflected the compromise reached by the Heads of State or Government at the Seville European Council meeting in the framework of a reform process which represented a substantial change to the existing procedures, the purpose of which was to enhance the efficiency of the Council's work prior to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.
Vo svojej odpovedi z 19. novembra 2003 generálny tajomník pripomenul, _17e ustanovenia _20lánku 8 rokovacieho poriadku Rady odzrkad_24ujú kompromis, ktor_18 dosiahli hlavy _15tátov alebo predsedovia vlád na zasadnutí Európskej rady v Seville v rámci reformného procesu, ktor_18 predstavuje v_18znamnú zmenu sú_20asn_18ch postupov v záujme zlep_15enia efektívnosti práce Rady pred roz_15írením Európskej únie v roku 2004.
In their complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainants pointed out that the principle of holding Council sessions in public, when the Council was acting as legislator, was provided for in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
Vo svojej s_27a_17nosti ombudsmanovi poukázali s_27a_17ovatelia na to, _17e zásada, _17e zasadnutia Rady v jej legislatívnej funkcii majú by_27 verejné, je ustanovená v Zmluve o Ústave pre Európu.
They also argued that the principle that decisions must be taken as openly as possible, which they read into Article 1(2) of the EU Treaty, was a general principle of law, which should be reflected in the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
Uviedli tie_17, _17e zásada, _17e prijímanie rozhodnutí musí by_27 _20o najotvorenej_15ie, ktorú vyvodzujú z _20lánku 1 ods. 2 Zmluvy o EÚ, je v_15eobecnou právnou zásadou, ktorá by sa mala odzrkadli_27 v rokovacom poriadku Rady.
See the Council's annual report on access to documents – 2004, pp. 27-29.
Pozri v_18ro_20nú správu Rady o prístupe k dokumentom – 2004, s. 27 – 29.
See the above-mentioned annual report, p. 27.
Pozri uvedenú v_18ro_20nú správu Rady, s.
Following this complaint, the Council essentially took the position that the matter was of a political and constitutional rather than of an administrative nature.
V súvislosti s touto s_27a_17nos_27ou Rada v podstate zaujala stanovisko, _17e táto otázka je skôr politickej a ústavnej ako administratívnej povahy.
Therefore, it had reservations whether it constituted "maladministration" to begin with.
Mala preto predov_15etk_18m v_18hrady k tomu, _17e by i_15lo o „nesprávny úradn_18 postup“.
The Council's Rules of Procedure are, in its view, fully in conformity with the Treaties.
Rokovací poriadok Rady je pod_24a nej v plnom súlade so zmluvami.
Moreover the Council maintained throughout the procedure that it had correctly applied the rules in force, which fact was not contested by the complainants.
Rada tie_17 po cel_18 _20as trvala na tom, _17e platn_18 poriadok uplat_25ovala správne, _20o s_27a_17ovatelia nepopierali.
On 4 October 2005 the Ombudsman submitted a special report to the European Parliament repeating his recommendation.
Ombudsman 4. októbra 2005 predlo_17il Európskemu parlamentu osobitnú správu, v ktorej zopakoval svoje odporú_20anie.
On 4 April 2006, the European Parliament adopted a resolution, based upon a report
Európsky parlament 4. apríla 2006 na základe správy svojho v_18boru pre petície
21 drawn up by its Committee on Petitions, in which it supported the Ombudsman's recommendations
21 prijal uznesenie, v ktorom ombudsmanove odporú_20ania podporil
Complaint 2366/2004/OV of 28 July 2004
S_15a_10nos_15 2366/2004/OV z 28. júla 2004
This complaint, which was already mentioned in the Annual Report covering the year 200422, concerns alleged refused access to a document concerning the application of the principle "ne bis in idem" in competition law.
Táto s_27a_17nos_27, ktorá sa u_17 spomína vo v_18ro_20nej správe za rok 200422, sa t_18ka údajného zamietnutia prístupu k dokumentu o uplat_25ovaní zásady „ne bis in idem“ v práve o hospodárskej sú_27a_17i.
On 4 July 2006 the Ombudsman closed the case without finding any maladministration.
Ombudsman 4. júla 2006 prípad uzavrel bez toho, aby kon_15tatoval, _17e do_15lo k nesprávnemu úradnému postupu.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council's position as reflected in its decision of 8 July 2004 on the initial request for access to documents and in its decision of 13 July 2004 on the confirmatory request for access to documents appeared to be reasonable.
Pod_24a ombudsmana sa pozícia Rady, ktorú odzrkad_24uje jej rozhodnutie z 8. júla 2004 o prvotnej _17iadosti o prístup k dokumentom a jej rozhodnutie z 13. júla 2004 o opakovanej _17iadosti o prístup k dokumentom, zdá oprávnená.
Complaint 1875/2005/GG of 17 May 2005
S_15a_10nos_15 1875/2005/GG zo 17. mája 2005
This complaint relates to an alleged failure by the Council to grant access to any documents in its possession concerning the negotiation and signature of the EU Status of Forces Agreement of
Táto s_27a_17nos_27 sa t_18ka údajného neposkytnutia prístupu Radou ku v_15etk_18m dokumentom v jej dr_17be,
, including documents relating to the organisation of the negotiations.
23, ktoré súvisia s dojednaním a podpisom dohody EÚ o _15tatúte síl zo 17. novembra 2003 (EU SOFA)vrátane dokumentov o priebehu rokovaní.
In its reply of 21 March 2005 to the initial application, the General Secretariat of the Council had informed the complainant that two kinds of preparatory documents existed: (a) a number of documents already available on the Council's website as part of the Council's register of documents; and (b) SN documents 4438/01, 4438/1/01 REV 1, 4438/4/01 REV 4 and 4438/5/01 REV 5.
Vo svojej odpovedi z 21. marca 2005 na prvotnú _17iados_27 Generálny sekretariát Rady informoval s_27a_17ovate_24a o tom, _17e existujú dva druhy prípravn_18ch dokumentov: a) rad dokumentov dostupn_18ch na webovej stránke Rady ako sú_20as_27 registra dokumentov Rady a b) dokumenty SN 4438/01, 4438/1/01 REV 1, 4438/4/01 REV 4 a 4438/5/01 REV 5.
As regards the second group of documents, the General Secretariat granted only partial access, withholding those parts of the documents which contained legal advice.
Dokumenty v druhej skupine generálny sekretariát sprístupnil len _20iasto_20ne, a to bez _20astí, ktoré obsahovali právne poradenstvo.
Cf. the European Parliament resolution on the Special Report from the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG concerning the openness of the meetings of the Council when acting in its legislative capacity (2005/2243(INI)) (T6-0121/2006) and the own initiative report (A6-0056/2006 ) tabled by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions on 3 March 2006.
Pozri uznesenie Európskeho parlamentu o osobitnej správe európskeho ombudsmana na základe návrhu odporú_20ania Rade Európskej únie v s_27a_17nosti 2395/2003/GG o otvorenosti zasadnutí Rady v jej legislatívnej funkcii (2005/2243(INI) (T6-0121/2006) a správu na vlastn_18 podnet (A6-0056/2006 ), ktorú predlo_17il v_18bor pre petície Európskeho parlamentu 3. marca 2006.
See the Council's annual report on access to documents – 2004, p. 29. OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 6.
Pozri v_18ro_20nú správu Rady o prístupe k dokumentom – 2004, s. Ú. v.
On 24 March 2005 the complainant submitted a confirmatory application to the Council, arguing that in view of the Agreement's scope and of the fact that the drafting process had taken over two years to complete, it was to be presumed that the Council held more than just those four documents.
S_27a_17ovate_24 24. marca 2005 predlo_17il Rade opakovanú _17iados_27, kde uviedol, _17e na základe rozsahu pôsobnosti dohody a toho, _17e jej vypracovanie trvalo vy_15e dvoch rokov, sa dá predpoklada_27, _17e Rada má viac ako len uvedené _15tyri dokumenty.
Moreover, the very numbering of these documents suggested that other relevant documents existed.
Aj ich _20íslovanie údajne sved_20í o tom, _17e existujú aj iné relevantné dokumenty.
In its reply to the applicant of 11 May 2005, the Council declared that no further documents concerning the negotiation and signature of the EU SOFA had been identified, and that the gap in the numbering sequence was due to the fact that SN documents 4438/2/01 REV 2 and 4438/3/01 REV 3 had been declared void and annulled during production.
V odpovedi _17iadate_24ovi z 11. mája 2005 Rada uviedla, _17e nena_15la _17iadne _22al_15ie dokumenty, ktoré by súviseli s dojednaním a podpisom EU SOFA, a medzeru v _20íslovaní spôsobilo to, _17e dokumenty SN 4438/2/01 REV 2 a 4438/3/01 REV 3 boli po_20as svojej prípravy vyhlásené za neplatné a anulované.
In his application of 10 March 2005, the complainant had also asked for a full and complete list of all those documents to which the Council might decide to refuse access, including "sensitive documents" within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
V _17iadosti z 10. marca 2005 tie_17 s_27a_17ovate_24 _17iadal o úpln_18 zoznam v_15etk_18ch dokumentov, ku ktor_18m by Rada mohla zamietnu_27 prístup, vrátane „citliv_18ch dokumentov“ v zmysle _20lánku 9 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001.
Given that this issue had not been addressed by the General Secretariat in its initial reply to the complainant, the latter repeated this request in his confirmatory application.
Ke_22_17e sa generálny sekretariát vo svojej odpovedi s_27a_17ovate_24ovi na prvotnú _17iados_27 touto otázkou nezaoberal, s_27a_17ovate_24 svoju po_17iadavku zopakoval aj v opakovanej _17iadosti.
In its reply of 11 May 2005, the Council pointed out that, in conformity with Article 9 of the Regulation, the institution was neither obliged to divulge any detail concerning a sensitive document nor to release it to the public, unless its originator decided otherwise.
V odpovedi z 11. mája 2005 Rada uviedla, _17e v súlade s _20lánkom 9 nariadenia in_15titúcia nie je povinná prezradi_27 ak_18ko_24vek údaj o citlivom dokumente ani ho sprístupni_27 verejnosti, pokia_24 jeho autor nerozhodne inak.
According to the Council, the only obligation for the institution in this context was to indicate at the end of each calendar year the total number of documents classified as "Confidential", "Secret" and "Top Secret" during the year, in conformity with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Pod_24a Rady má v tejto súvislosti in_15titúcia jedine povinnos_27 uvies_27 na konci ka_17dého kalendárneho roka celkov_18 po_20et dokumentov so stup_25om utajenia „Confidential“, „Secret“ a „Top Secret“ z daného roka v súlade s _20lánkom 17 ods. 1 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001.