natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, a number of meetings between the Council, Parliament and Commission departments responsible for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were held in 2006 in order to explore the possibility of increasing the user-friendliness of the public registers of the three institutions and with a view to compare and exchange practical experience as regards the application of the Regulation in the light of recent case-law on public access to documents.
V roku 2006 sa v_15ak uskuto_20nili mnohé stretnutia medzi oddeleniami Rady, Parlamentu a Komisie, ktoré sú zodpovedné za uplat_25ovanie nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/2001 s cie_24om preskúma_27 mo_17nos_27 zv_18_15enia u_17ívate_24skej prijate_24nosti verejn_18ch registrov t_18chto troch in_15titúcií a s cie_24om porovna_27 a vymeni_27 si praktické skúsenosti, pokia_24 ide o uplat_25ovanie nariadenia v zmysle nedávnej judikatúry o verejnom prístupe k dokumentom.
A more substantive review on their implementation and effects of the overall policy on transparency will be conducted by the end of 2007, when more practical experience has been acquired.
Podrobnej_15ie preskúmanie ich vykonávania a vplyvu celkovej politiky transparentnosti sa uskuto_20ní do konca roka 2007, ke_22 sa získa viac praktick_18ch skúseností.
While, during the first half of 2006, 17% of all legislative discussions in the Council took place in public, this figure had risen to 76% during the second half of the year.
K_18m za prv_18 polrok 2006 sa 17 % v_15etk_18ch legislatívnych rokovaní v Rade uskuto_20nilo verejne, toto _20íslo stúplo v druhom polroku roka na 76 %.
Altogether 122 legislative items ("A" items as well as "B" items) and 45 non-legislative issues (all "B" items) were dealt with in public during the second half of 2006, which brings the number of topics dealt with in public during that period to a total of 167 items.
V druhej polovici roka 2006 sa verejne rokovalo spolu o 122 legislatívnych otázkach (body „A“, ako aj body „B“) a 45 nelegislatívnych otázkach, _20o znamená, _17e po_20et tém, o ktor_18ch sa v tomto období rokovalo verejne, predstavuje 167 otázok.
By the end of 2006, more than 40 000 visits had been recorded for these new facilities on the Council's web site.
Do konca roka 2006 sa zaznamenalo viac ako 40 000 náv_15tev t_18chto nov_18ch zariadení na webovej stránke Rady.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information in Environmental Matters
1367/2006 o uplat_16ovaní ustanovení Aarhuského dohovoru o prístupe informáciám v zále_11itostiach _11ivotného prostredia
In September 2006, the European Parliament and the Council jointly adopted Regulation 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Európsky parlament a Rada spolo_20ne prijali v septembri 2006 nariadenie 1367/2006 o uplat_25ovaní ustanovení Aarhuského dohovoru o prístupe k informáciám, ú_20asti verejnosti na rozhodovacom procese a
As already mentioned in a previous annual report on access to documents, the UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the Århus Convention) was adopted and signed by the European Community and its Member
Ako u_17 bolo uvedené v predo_15lej v_18ro_20nej správe o prístupe k dokumentom, Dohovor OSN/EHK o prístupe k informáciám, ú_20asti verejnosti na rozhodovacom procese a prístupe k spravodlivosti v zále_17itostiach _17ivotného prostredia (Aarhusk_18 dohovor) Európske spolo_20enstvo a jeho _20lenské _15táty prijali a podpísali v roku 199826.
States in 199826.
V zmysle nariadenia (ES) _20.
The Community approved the convention by Council Decision 2005/370/EC on 17 February 200527.
1367/2006, ktoré sa uplat_25uje od 28. júna 2007, má ka_17dá fyzická a právnická osoba právo na prístup k informáciám v oblasti _17ivotného prostredia, ktoré má ktoráko_24vek in_15titúcia alebo orgán Spolo_20enstva28. Ak nariadenie (ES) _20.
By virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, that shall apply from 28 June 2007, any natural or legal person has a right of access to environmental information held by any Community institution or body28. Where
1049/2001 ustanovuje v_18nimky, uplat_25ujú sa v závislosti od ak_18chko_24vek osobitn_18ch ustanovení uveden_18ch v nariadení (ES) _20.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for exceptions, these shall apply subject to any more specific provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 concerning requests for environmental information.
1367/2006 t_18kajúcich sa _17iadostí o informácie z oblasti _17ivotného prostredia.
As regards Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/200129, an overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.
Pokia_24 ide o _20lánok 4 ods. 2 prvá a tretia zará_17ka nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/200129, má sa za to, _17e ak sa po_17adované informácie t_18kajú emisií do _17ivotného prostredia, existuje preva_17ujúci verejn_18 záujem o zverejnenie.
As regards the other exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the grounds for refusal shall be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.
Pokia_24 ide o iné v_18nimky uvedené v _20lánku 4 nariadenia (ES) 1049/2001, dôvody zamietnutia sa vykladajú re_15triktívnym spôsobom, pri_20om sa zoh_24ad_25uje verejn_18 záujem, ktor_18 sa sleduje zverejnením informácií, a to, _20i sa po_17adované informácie vz_27ahujú na emisie do _17ivotného prostredia.
In addition to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Community institutions and bodies may refuse access to environmental information where disclosure of the information would adversely affect the protection of the environment to which the information relates, such as the breeding
Okrem v_18nimiek pod_24a _20lánku 4 nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/2001 mô_17u in_15titúcie a orgány Spolo_20enstva odmietnu_27 prístup k informáciám o _17ivotnom prostredí, ak by ich zverejnenie mohlo nepriaznivo ovplyvni_27 ochranu _17ivotného prostredia, ktorej sa informácie t_18kajú, napríklad miesta rozmno_17ovania
30 sites of rare species
30 vzácnych druhov
See Council Annual Report on access to documents 2004 (doc.
Pozri v_18ro_20nú správu Rady o prístupe k dokumentom 2004 (dokument 8896/05), s. 11 – 13.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 therefore also covers the Court of Justice, except when the Court is acting in its judicial capacity.
Nariadenie (ES) _20. 1367/2006 sa preto t_18ka aj Súdneho dvora okrem prípadu, kedy Súdny dvor koná v súdnej funkcii.
With the exception of investigations, in particular those concerning possible infringements of Community law; cf.
S v_18nimkou vy_15etrovania, najmä toho, ktoré sa t_18ka mo_17ného poru_15enia práva Spolo_20enstva; Pozri _20lánok 6 ods. 1 nariadenia (ES) _20. 1367/2006.
See Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.
Pozri _20lánok 6 ods. 2 nariadenia (ES) _20. 1367/2006.
The provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the collection and dissemination of environmental information go somewhat beyond those laid down in Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Ustanovenia uvedené v nariadení (ES) _20. 1367/2006 o zhroma_17_22ovaní a _15írení informácií o _17ivotnom prostredí trochu zachádzajú za ustanovenia uvedené v 12 a 13 nariadenia (ES) _20. 1049/2001.
_1 texts of international treaties, conventions or agreements, Community legislation on the environment or relating to it, and of policies, plans and programmes relating to the environment;_1 progress reports on the implementation of those instruments; _1 steps taken in proceedings for infringements of Community law from the stage of the reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 226 (1) of the EC Treaty; _1 reports on the state of the environment which the Commission is required to publish and disseminate at regular intervals not exceeding 4 years; _1 data or summaries of data derived from the monitoring of activities affecting, or likely to affect, the environment; _1 authorisations with a significant impact on the environment, and environmental impact studies and risk assessments concerning environmental elements.
_1 znenia medzinárodn_18ch zmlúv, dohovorov alebo dohôd, právnych predpisov Spolo_20enstva o _17ivotnom prostredí alebo s ním súvisiacich a politík, plánov a programov, ktoré sa t_18kajú _17ivotného prostredia;_1 správy o pokroku pri vykonávaní t_18chto nástrojov; _1 kroky uskuto_20nené v konaní o poru_15ení práva Spolo_20enstva od vydania odôvodneného stanoviska pod_24a _20lánku 226 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES; _1 správy o stave _17ivotného prostredia, ktor_18ch uverej_25ovanie a roz_15irovanie sa od Komisie vy_17aduje v pravideln_18ch intervaloch, ktoré neprekro_20ia 4 roky; _1 údaje alebo preh_24ady údajov získané z monitorovania _20inností, ktoré ovplyv_25ujú alebo by mohli ovplyvni_27 _17ivotné prostredie; _1 oprávnenia s v_18razn_18m dopadom na _17ivotné prostredie a dopadové _15túdie na _17ivotné prostredie a hodnotenia rizík, ktoré sa t_18kajú prvkov _17ivotného prostredia.
In appropriate cases, Community institutions and bodies may satisfy their obligations regarding the collection and dissemination of environmental information by creating links to Internet sites where the information can be found.
In_15titúcie a orgány Spolo_20enstva mô_17u vo vhodn_18ch prípadoch splni_27 svoje povinnosti t_18kajúce sa zhroma_17_22ovania a _15írenia informácií o _17ivotnom prostredí vytvorením odkazov na internetové stránky, na ktor_18ch mo_17no informácie nájs_27.
COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
S_26A_16NOSTI PODANÉ EURÓPSKEMU OMBUDSMANOVI
The following section of this report refers to the only complaint lodged in 2006 concerning the Council's application of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Táto _20as_27 správy sa podrobne zaoberá jedinou s_27a_17nos_27ou, ktorá bola v súvislosti s uplat_25ovaním nariadenia _20. 1049/2001 podaná v roku 2006.
Complaint 386/2006/BM, submitted to the Ombudsman on 8 February 2006
S_17a_11nos_17 386/2006/BM, podaná ombudsmanovi 8. februára 2006
This complaint relates to the Council's refusal to grant access to document 15066/05, which is a letter from the Chairman of the Administrative Board of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Trade marks and Designs), to the Council's Secretary-General/High Representative for CFSP, containing at annex a summary of decisions taken during the 30th meeting of the above-mentioned Administrative Board held in Alicante on 23 November 2005, and a list of candidates for the post of President of the Boards of Appeal.
Táto s_27a_17nos_27 sa t_18ka zamietnutia Rady udeli_27 prístup k dokumentu 15066/05, ktor_18 je listom predsedu správnej rady Úradu pre harmonizáciu vnútorného trhu (OHIM) (ochranné známky a dizajny) generálnemu tajomníkovi/vysokému splnomocnencovi Rady pre SZBP a ktor_18 v prílohe obsahuje preh_24ad rozhodnutí prijat_18ch na 30. zasadnutí uvedenej správnej rady, ktoré sa konalo v Alicante 23. novembra 2005, a zoznam kandidátov na post predsedu odvolacích senátov.
Given that the requested document originated from OHIM, the Council consulted that agency, in accordance with Article 4 (4) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Vzh_24adom na to, _17e _17iadan_18 dokument pochádzal z OHIM-u, Rada sa s t_18mto úradom poradila v súlade _20lánku 4 ods. 4 nariadenia _20. 1049/2001.
In OHIM’s view, the identity of these candidates is protected pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation (protection of privacy).
Pod_24a názoru OHIM-u je toto_17nos_27 t_18chto kandidátov chránená pod_24a _20lánku 4 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ochrana súkromia).
In its reply to the applicant's initial request, dated 19 December 2005, the General Secretariat granted partial access to this document on these lines, since it saw no reasons to deviate from OHIM’s assessment.
Generálny sekretariát vo svojej odpovedi na prvotnú _17iados_27 _17iadate_24a z 19. decembra 2005 udelil _20iasto_20n_18 prístup k tomuto dokumentu za t_18chto podmienok, ke_22_17e nevidel dôvod na odch_18lenie sa od stanoviska OHIM-u.
The Council subsequently confirmed this position in its reply to the applicant's confirmatory request, in which he had asked the Institution to reconsider its initial refusal by granting full access to document 15066/05.
Rada následne potvrdila toto stanovisko vo svojej odpovedi na opakovanú _17iados_27 _17iadate_24a, v ktorej _17iadal in_15titúciu, aby opätovne zvá_17ila svoje prvotné zamietnutie tak, _17e udelí pln_18 prístup k dokumentu 15066/05.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Council's decision not to grant him access to the results of the selection process for the position of President of the Boards of Appeal of the OHIM was unjustified and insisted on obtaining access to the document, showing his name anywhere it might appear and omitting only the names of other shortlisted candidates.
S_27a_17ovate_24 vo svojej s_27a_17nosti ombudsmanovi tvrdil, _17e rozhodnutie Rady o neudelení prístupu k v_18sledkom v_18berového konania na post predsedu odvolacích senátov OHIM-u bolo neodôvodnené, a trval na získaní prístupu k dokumentu s t_18m, aby sa jeho meno uviedlo tam, kde sa nachádza, a vynechali sa iba mená ostatn_18ch kandidátov na zozname.
The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsman, that he would be willing to accept that if the Council gave him partial access to a document containing information about himself, it would be obliged to provide the same partial access to any other person in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001.
S_27a_17ovate_24 následne informoval ombudsmana, _17e bude ochotn_18 akceptova_27 to, _17e keby mu Rada poskytla _20iasto_20n_18 prístup k dokumentu obsahujúcemu informácie o sebe, musela by poskytnú_27 rovnak_18 _20iasto_20n_18 prístup akejko_24vek inej osobe v súlade s nariadením 1049/2001.
In its opinion on this complaint, the Council pointed out that there were two different aspects to the matter, namely (1) the question whether the Council committed maladministration at the time of the adoption of the contested confirmatory decision and (2) the question whether the additional information provided by the complainant in his complaint to the Ombudsman would now allow the Council to take a different decision.
Rada vo svojom stanovisku _17iadate_24ovi zdôraznila, _17e v súvislosti s danou zále_17itos_27ou ide o dva rôzne aspekty, a to (1) o otázku, _20i sa Rada dopustila nesprávneho úradného postupu v _20ase prijatia napadnutého potvrdzujúceho rozhodnutia a (2) o otázku, _20i dodato_20né informácie, ktoré s_27a_17ovate_24 poskytol vo svojej s_27a_17nosti ombudsmanovi, by teraz Rade umo_17_25ovali vyda_27 iné rozhodnutie.
As indicated above, the General Secretariat of the Council had initially consulted OHIM pursuant to Article 4 (4) of Regulation 1049/2001, which provides as follows: “As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed”.
Ako je uvedené vy_15_15ie, Generálny sekretariát Rady sa najprv poradil s OHIM-om pod_24a _20lánku 4 ods. 4 nariadenia 1049/2001, v ktorom sa stanovuje toto: „Pokia_15 ide o dokumenty tretej osoby a nie je jasné, _13i dokument mô_11e alebo nemô_11e by_17 zverejnen_12, orgány sa poradia s tre_17ou osobou s cie_15om posúdi_17, _13i sa mô_11e pou_11i_17 v_12nimka z odseku 1 alebo 2“.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Council took the view that although it is true that in the system of Article 4(4) of the Regulation, the final decision on confirmatory requests no longer lies with the originator, it is equally true that Article 4(4) must be interpreted in a manner that gives full effect to its wording.
Rada vo svojom stanovisku s_27a_17ovate_24ovi bola toho názoru, _17e hoci je pravdou, _17e v systéme _20lánku 4 ods. 4 nariadenia kone_20né rozhodnutie o opakovan_18ch _17iadostiach u_17 nevykonáva pôvodca, je rovnako pravdou, _17e _20lánok 4 ods. 4 sa musí vyklada_27 spôsobom, ktor_18 dáva plnú ú_20innos_27 jeho zneniu.
Apart from the fact that the originator is often best placed to assess the possible harm that release could cause, it was also highly unlikely that the drafters of the Regulation had intended the consultation of the originating third party to be a mere formality.
Okrem skuto_20nosti, _17e pôvodca mô_17e _20asto najlep_15ie posúdi_27 mo_17né riziko, ktoré by mohlo zverejnenie spôsobi_27, bolo taktie_17 ve_24mi nepravdepodobné, _17e zámerom navrhovate_24ov nariadenia bolo, aby bola porada s pôvodnou tre_27ou stranou iba púhou formalitou.
The operation of Article 4(4) presumes a measure of mutual trust between the institutions and bodies as regards the treatment of their respective documents.
Fungovanie _20lánku 4 ods. 4 predpokladá opatrenie vzájomnej dôvery medzi in_15titúciami a orgánmi, pokia_24 ide o nakladanie s dan_18mi dokumentmi.
The Council could therefore not simply ignore OHIM’s opinion as regards a document drawn up by it.
Rada preto nemohla jednoducho ignorova_27 stanovisko OHIM-u, pokia_24 ide o dokument, ktor_18 vypracoval.
The application by the Council of the provision laid down in Article 4 (4) of the Regulation should be seen against this background.
Na uplatnenie ustanovenia stanoveného v _20lánku 4 ods. 4 nariadenia zo strany Rady by sa malo pozera_27 v tomto kontexte.
The Council normally consults the third party and, unless that party's opinion is manifestly unreasonable or illegal, it respects the opinion given by the third party concerned.
Rada sa be_17ne radí s tre_27ou stranou a ak nie je stanovisko tejto strany zjavne neodôvodnené alebo nezákonné, re_15pektuje toto stanovisko poskytnuté dotknutou tre_27ou stranou.
In the case at hand, the question was not whether the Council would have arrived at exactly the same conclusion as OHIM.
V danom prípade ne_15lo o otázku, _20i by Rada dospela k presne takému záveru ako OHIM.
Rather, the test applied was whether OHIM’s reasoning was manifestly incorrect.
Skúmalo sa skôr, _20i nebolo odôvodnenie zo strany OHIM-u zjavne nesprávne.
In the Council’s judgment, this was not the case.
Pod_24a úsudku Rady tomu tak nebolo.
Consequently, access to the three names was refused.
V dôsledku toho bol prístup k t_18mto trom menám zamietnut_18.
The Council considered that this manner of application Article 4 (4) was reasonable and well within the limits of the law.
Rada zvá_17ila, _17e tento spôsob uplatnenia _20lánku 4 ods. 4 je odôvodnen_18 a v medziach zákona.
It moreover minimised the risk that the Council incurred a legal liability as a result of disclosure contested by the originating third party.
Okrem toho sa t_18m minimalizovalo riziko, _17e Rada prebrala právnu zodpovednos_27 v dôsledku zverejnenia, ktoré bolo napadnuté pôvodnou tre_27ou stranou.
As regards the second question, the Council investigated whether the additional information provided to the Ombudsman by the complainant would allow it to provide more information, although this issue strictly speaking went beyond the scope of his complaint.
Pokia_24 ide o druhú otázku, Rada pre_15etrila, _20i by dodato_20né informácie, ktoré s_27a_17ovate_24 poskytol ombudsmanovi, umo_17nili poskytnú_27 viac informácií, hoci, ak sa to vezme prísne, táto otázka prekro_20ila rozsah jeho s_27a_17nosti.
To that effect, it reconsulted OHIM.
Na tento ú_20el sa opätovne poradila s OHIM-om.
Following this reconsultation, and given that the complainant seemed to be mostly interested in knowing whether he was one of the three candidates named in the document and how many votes he obtained, the Council could inform the complainant that he was not mentioned in the document.
Po tejto opätovnej porade a vzh_24adom na to, _17e sa zdalo, _17e s_27a_17ovate_24 chcel ve_24mi vedie_27, _20i bol on jedn_18m z troch kandidátov uveden_18ch v dokumente a ko_24ko hlasov získal, Rada mohla s_27a_17ovate_24ovi oznámi_27, _17e v dokumente uveden_18 nebol.
This case is still pending.
Prípad stále nie je uzavret_18.
Rulings given under the rules on access to documents
Rozhodnutia vydané pod_15a predpisov o prístupe k dokumentom
In 2006, no rulings were given by the Community Courts in cases concerning access to Council documents.
V roku 2006 súdy Spolo_20enstva nevydali rozhodnutia vo veciach t_18kajúcich sa prístupu k dokumentom Rady.
However, on 1 February 2007, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in case C-266/05 P, in which the applicant, José María Sisón had brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Súdny dvor v_15ak 1. februára 2007 vydal rozsudok vo veci C-266/05 P, v ktorej sa _17alobca José María Sison odvolal proti rozsudku Súdu prvého stup_25a z 26. apríla 2005 v spojen_18ch veciach T-110/03, T-150/03 a T-405/0331.
In this case, the appellant submitted that the above-mentioned judgment should be annulled on the grounds that - the Court of First Instance had unduly limited the scope of its review of legality without responding to the applicant's arguments - its review of legality effectively lead to a complete discretion of the Council and to a complete denial of the right of access to documents, and, moreover
V tejto veci odvolate_24 tvrdil, _17e uveden_18 rozsudok by sa mal zru_15i_27 na tom základe, _17e - Súd prvej in_15tancie neprimerane obmedzil rozsah preskúmania zákonnosti bez reakcie na argumenty _17alobcu - jeho preskúmanie zákonnosti ú_20inne viedlo k úplnej vo_24nosti rozhodovania Rady a k úplnému zamietnutiu práva na prístup k dokumentom a okrem toho
See the summary of this ruling set out on pages 31 and 32 of the Council Annual report on access to documents - 2004.
Pozri zhrnutie tohto rozhodnutia uvedené na stranách 31 a 32 v_18ro_20nej správy Rady o prístupe k dokumentom z roku 2004.
- - lead to a denial of the duty to state reasons and therefore infringed upon Article 253 of the EC Treaty the Court of First Instance had misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation 1049/2001.
- - viedlo k zamietnutiu povinnosti uvies_27 dôvody, a preto do_15lo k poru_15eniu _20lánku 253 Zmluvy o ES Súd prvého stup_25a chybne vylo_17il a uplatnil _20lánky 4 a 9 nariadenia 1049/2001.
In its judgment, the Court rejected these grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal as unfounded in its entirety.
Súd vo svojom rozsudku odmietol tieto dôvody odvolania a odvolanie zamietol ako nepodlo_17ené v celom rozsahu.
As far as the first ground of appeal is concerned, the Court recalled that the scope of the review of legality incumbent on the Community Courts under Article 230 of the EC Treaty can vary according to the matters under consideration.
Pokia_24 ide o prv_18 dôvod odvolania, súd pripomenul, _17e rozsah preskúmania povinnosti zákonnosti súdov Spolo_20enstva pod_24a _20lánku 230 Zmluvy o ES sa mô_17e lí_15i_27 pod_24a otázok, ktoré sa zva_17ujú.
In the case at hand, the Court of First Instance correctly took the view that a wide discretion is conferred upon an institution when it justifies its refusal of access by reference to the protection of the public interest provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and that the Community Court’s review of the legality of such a decision must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.
V danom prípade mal Súd prvého stup_25a správny názor, _17e in_15titúcii sa ude_24uje vo_24né rozhodovanie, ke_22 odôvod_25uje svoje zamietnutie prístupu odkazom na ochranu verejného záujmu stanoveného v _20lánku 4 ods. 1 písm. a) nariadenia _20. 1049/2001 a _17e preskúmanie zákonnosti takéhoto rozhodnutia zo strany súdu Spolo_20enstva sa preto musí obmedzi_27 na overenie toho, _20i boli dodr_17ané procesné pravidlá a povinnos_27 uvies_27 dôvody, _20i boli skuto_20nosti uvedené presne a _20i _15lo o zjavnú chybu v posúdení alebo zneu_17itie právomoci.