natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(11) Določiti je treba jasna pravila glede razkrivanja dokumentov, ki izvirajo iz držav članic, in dokumentov tretjih strank, ki so del sodnih spisov ali so jih institucije pridobile zaradi svojih posebnih preiskovalnih pooblastil, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava ES.
(11) Clear rules should be established regarding the disclosure of documents originating from the Member States and of documents of third parties which are part of judicial proceedings files or obtained by the institutions by virtue of specific powers of investigation conferred upon them by EC law.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da obveznost posvetovanja z državami članicami glede zahtev za dostop do njihovih dokumentov državam članicam ne daje pravice, da zavrnejo tak dostop ali da se sklicujejo na nacionalne zakone ali določbe, in da lahko institucija, na katero je naslovljena zahteva, zavrne dostop samo na podlagi izjem, določenih v Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001.
The Court of Justice has made it clear that the obligation to consult Member States as regards requests for access to documents originating from them does not give the Member States a right to veto such access or to invoke national laws or provisions and that the institution to which the request is made may refuse access only on the basis of the exceptions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Vendar je še vedno treba razjasniti status dokumentov, ki izvirajo od tretjih strank, da bi zagotovili, da se zlasti informacije, ki se nanašajo na zakonodajne postopke, ne izmenjujejo bolj obširno s strankami, vključno z upravnimi organi tretjih držav, kot pa z evropskimi državljani, na katere se bo zakonodaja nanašala.
However, there is still a need to clarify the status of documents emanating from third parties in order to ensure that, in particular, information relating to legislative procedures is not shared more broadly with the parties, including administrative authorities of third countries, than with the European citizens to whom the legislation will apply.
Sklicevanje na združenja se nanaša na t. i. skupine državljanov.
The reference to the associations is aiming i.e. citizens' groups.
(b) „tretja stranka“ pomeni neko fizično ali pravno osebo ali subjekt zunaj institucije, vključno z državami članicami, drugimi institucijami in organi Skupnosti ali zunaj Skupnosti in tretjimi državami .
(b) "third party" means any natural or legal person, or any entity outside the institution concerned, including the Member States , other Community or non-Community institutions and bodies and third countries.
(b) „tretja stranka“ pomeni neko fizično ali pravno osebo ali subjekt zunaj institucije, druge institucije in organe Skupnosti ali zunaj Skupnosti in tretje države .
(b) "third party" means any natural or legal person, or any entity outside the institution concerned, other Community or non-Community institutions and bodies and third countries.
Države članice se v svojih odnosih z institucijami ali svojih komunikacijah o zadevah, ki se nanašajo na področje delovanja Unije, ne bi smele šteti kot tretje stranke.
Member States should not be considered third parties in their relations with the institutions or their communications on matters relating to the field of activities of the Union.
(ba) zasebnosti in integritete posameznika, zlasti v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti s področja varstva osebnih podatkov;
( ba ) the privacy and the integrity of the individual, in particular in accordance with Community legislation regarding the protection of personal data;
Vključeno je sklicevanje na zakonodajo Evropske unije o osebnih podatkih.
Reference to EU legislation on personal data is included.
Tudi v tem okviru naj se uporablja odstavek 3.3. pravila 80a poslovnika.
In this context as well, paragraph 3.3 of rule 80a of the rules of procedures should apply.
Glede dokumentov tretjih strank se institucija s tretjimi strankami posvetuje, da bi presodila, ali se lahko uporabi izjema iz člena 4, razen če je že jasno, ali naj se dokument razkrije ali ne.
As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception referred to in Article 4 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed.
Dokumenti, ki so institucijam bili zagotovljeni, da bi z njimi vplivali na oblikovanje politike, bi morali biti javni.
Documents provided to institutions for the purpose of influencing policy-making should be made public.
Za zagotavljanje preglednosti procesa oblikovanja politike bi dokumenti, ki jih zagotovijo tretje stranke in so namenjeni za vplivanje na politične odločitve, morali biti javni.
In order to guarantee transparency of the policy making process, documents provided by third parties and aiming at influencing the political decisions should be made public.
Komisija in Svet zagotovita ustrezen nadzor Evropskega parlamenta glede dokumentov občutljive narave v skladu z dogovori med institucijami, ki se objavijo .
The Commission and the Council shall ensure adequate control by the European Parliament regarding sensitive documents in accordance with arrangements agreed between the institutions , which shall be made public .
Medinstitucionalni dogovori o občutljivih dokumentih bi morali biti javni.
The arrangements agreed between the institutions regarding sensitive documents should be made public.
Vsaka institucija v svojem poslovniku določi druge kategorije dokumentov, ki so neposredno dostopne javnosti.
Each institution shall define in its rules of procedure which other categories of documents are directly accessible to the public .
Institucije vzpostavijo skupni vmesnik za svoje registre dokumentov in zlasti zagotovijo enotno dostopno točko za neposreden dostop do dokumentov, sestavljenih ali prejetih med postopki za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov Skupnosti ali nezakonodajnih aktov, ki se splošno uporabljajo.
The institutions shall establish a common interface for their registers of documents , and shall in particular ensure a single point of access for direct access to documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of Community legislative acts or non-legislative acts of general application .
Monica Frassoni,
Monica Frassoni
V skladu s členom 1(2) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (kakor je bila spremenjena z amsterdamsko pogodbo leta 1997) morajo institucije in organi Skupnosti sprejemati odločitve čim bolj odprto in čim bliže državljanom.
According to Article 1(2) of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997) Community institutions and bodies must take decisions as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizens.
Da bi jim omogočili učinkovito sodelovanje v političnem procesu in da bi poklicali na odgovornost javne organe, bi morali imeti državljani in izvoljeni organi čim širši dostop do dokumentov evropskih institucij.
In order to enable them to effectively participate in the political process and call public authorities to account, citizens and elected bodies should therefore have the widest possible access to documents held by the European institutions.
Čeprav so evropske institucije dosegle napredek na področju odprtosti in preglednosti, stanje še zdaleč ni popolno in sedanje preoblikovanje uredbe 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov evropskih institucij bi morali šteti kot še en korak k uresničevanju upravnega okolja, v katerem bosta razpoložljivost in preprost dostop do informacij pravilo in ne izjema.
Although the European institutions have been making progress with regard to openness and transparency the situation is by no means perfect and the current recast of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents held by the European institutions should be considered as another step towards achieving an administrative environment in which availability and ease of access to information is the norm rather than the exception.
Sedanje spremembe, ki jih je v uredbo vnesla Komisija, pa so nezadovoljive, saj predlogi Komisije v številnih primerih predstavljajo korak nazaj namesto pogumnega koraka naprej na poti k večji preglednosti.
The actual amendments the Commission has brought to the Regulation, however, are disappointing as in a number of cases the Commission's proposals represent a step backwards rather than a bold step ahead in "a drive towards more transparency".
Poročevalec meni, da bi morala biti dejanska vključitev in konsolidacija zbrane sodne prakse in drugih ustreznih besedil, kakšno je aarhuška konvencija, v uredbo, že vzrok za drugačen pristop k reviziji.
Your rapporteur feels that real integration and consolidation of the accrued case law and other relevant texts, such as the Arhus Convention, into the Regulation should already have led to a different approach to the revision.
Poročevalec tudi meni, da je odločitev Komisije, da za revizijo uporabi postopek prenovitve, neprimerna in ni skladna s cilji medinstitucionalnega sporazuma o postopku prenovitve, ki predvideva njegovo uporabo v precej drugačnih okoliščinah.
Furthermore, you rapporteur considers the Commission's choice to use the re-cast procedure, for the revision is unfortunate and not in conformity with the objectives of the interinstitutional agreement on the re-cast procedure, which foresees its use under quite different conditions.
Ker postopek a priori omejuje možnosti Parlamenta za spremembe predloga na samo elemente, ki jih je spremenila Komisija, bi bilo treba njegovo uporabo pozorno preučiti.
As the procedure a priori limits Parliament's possibilities to amend the proposal to only the elements amended by the Commission, its use should be carefully evaluated.
Neprimernost postopka prenovitve za izčrpno revizijo, kjer spremembe nekaterih elementov vplivajo na druge določbe v besedilu, v praktičnem smislu pomeni, da mora Parlament obširno uporabljati odstopanje, predvideno v medinstitucionalnem sporazumu.
The unsuitability of the re-cast procedure for a complex revision, where changes in some elements have implications for other provisions in the text, in practical terms means that Parliament must make extensive use of the derogation provided for in the IIA.
Najbolj izrazit korak nazaj je opredelitev, ki jo je oblikovala Komisija (člen 3), pojma "dokument", ki je bistven pojem uredbe.
The most notable step backwards is the Commission's reformulated definition (Article 3) of "document", the concept that lies at the very heart of the Regulation.
Poročevalec meni, da bi namesto zožitve opredelitve, ki jo dejansko predlaga Komisija, morala biti ta opredelitev razširjena tako, da bi vključila vse vsebine, ne glede na medij ali fazo postopka odločanja, o zadevah, ki sodijo v pristojnost institucij.
Your rapporteur is of the opinion that instead of narrowing down the definition, as the Commission in fact proposes, this definition should be broadened to include all content, irrespective of its medium or the phase of the decision-making process, concerning matters which fall within the institutions' sphere of responsibility.
Odbor za peticije spremlja delovanje Unije, zlasti njenih pomanjkljivost pri uporabi prava, politik in programov Skupnosti, ter kar naprej ugotavlja, da se državljani teh pomanjkljivosti zelo zavedajo, ker jih neposredno prizadenejo in ker imajo neposreden interes za prenehanje kršitev in/ali za uporabo pravnih sredstev.
The Committee on petitions keeps the finger on the pulse of the Union with regard to failings and shortcomings in the application of Community law, policies and programmes and it continues to note that citizens are very conscious of such shortcomings, because they affect them directly and because they have a direct interest in ending infringements and/or seeking redress.
Za državljane je posebej pomembno, da se, na primer v primerih postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, ki so pogosto posledica peticij državljanov, zagotovi polni dostop do vseh dokumentov na vseh stopnjah preiskave v teku takega postopka.
For citizens it is of particular importance that for instance in the case of infringement procedures, which often result from citizens' petitions, full access should be provided to all documents at all stages of investigations in the course of such procedures.
To obsega tudi dokumente, ki jih pošiljajo države članice.
This includes documents provided by Member States.
Zato poročevalec poudarja, da je predlog Komisije, da državam članicam da pravico, da zavrnejo dostop do dokumentov (člen 5) na podlagi njihove državne zakonodaje, v nasprotju s sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča in ni sprejemljiv.
Therefore your rapporteur points out that the Commission's proposal to give Member States a right to refuse access to documents (Article 5) based on their own legislation is contrary to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and not acceptable.
Za pravico državljanov do dostopa do dokumentov se ne bi smela uporabljati nobena druga izjema iz člena 4 („Izjeme“).
No other exceptions than laid down in Articles 4 ("Exceptions") should be applicable to citizens' rights of access to documents.
Kar zadeva člen 9 („Obravnava dokumentov občutljive narave“) je pomembno, da institucije določijo skupna pravila za razvrstitev takih dokumentov in da so ta pravila javna.
With regard to Article 9 ("Sensitive documents") it is important that the institutions should lay down common rules for the classification of such documents and that these rules should be made public.
Poročevalec tudi meni, da bi bilo v uredbo koristno vključiti predlog evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, da ukrepa kot objektiven posrednik v primerih, ko institucija v celoti ali deloma zavrne dostop do dokumentov in prosilec dvomi, da bi to dejansko škodovalo zadevnim interesom in/ali meni, da je razkritje v prevladujočem javnem interesu.
Your rapporteur also considers that it would be worthwhile to integrate into the Regulation the European Ombudsman's suggestion to act as an objective intermediary in cases where access to a document is wholly or partially refused by an institution and the applicant questions the reality of harm to the affected interest and/or argues that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
V takih primerih bi lahko varuh človekovih pravic dokument pregledal, zavzel neodvisno stališče glede škode in/ali prevladujočega javnega interesa in podal svoje mnenje instituciji in prosilcu, ne da bi razkril dokument.
In such cases the Ombudsman could inspect the document, take an independent view on the question of harm and/or an overriding public interest and - without disclosing the document - give his opinion to the institution and the applicant.
Če se po posvetovanju z varuhom človekovih pravic zavrnitev potrdi, lahko prosilec, če želi, vloži potrdilno prošnjo.
If after the Ombudsman has been consulted the refusal is upheld, the applicant can make a confirmatory application if he or she so wishes.
Ta postopek nikakor ne bi omejil prosilčevih pravic na podlagi uredbe, ampak bi ponudil praktično pomoč in navodila instituciji, ki lahko meni, da ima pravno obveznost zavrniti dostop, in bi povečal zaupanje prosilca, da je v primeru, ko je vloga zavrnjena, verjetnost škode realna in da je bila možnost prevladujočega javnega interesa v razkritju resno in objektivno preučena.
This procedure would not diminish the applicant's rights under the Regulation in any way but would offer practical help and guidance to the institution, which may consider that it is under a legal obligation to refuse access, and increase the applicant's trust that, when an application is rejected, the likelihood of harm is real and the possibility of an overriding public interest in disclosure has been seriously and objectively examined.
Še ena prednost tega postopka bi bila dosledno in enako ravnanje z vsemi primeri zavrnitve iz različnih institucij, poslanimi v pregled varuhu človekovih pravic.
Another advantage of this procedure would be that refusal cases from different institutions put before the Ombudsman would be dealt with in a coherent and equitable way.
Poročevalec meni, da si je težko predstavljati, da bi pobuda za preglednost v Evropi uspela, če prosilci ne morejo z lahkoto najti in dobiti želenih informacij.
Your rapporteur is of the opinion that it is hardly imaginable that the European Transparency Initiative will succeed if applicants cannot easily find and retrieve the information they want.
V okviru te uredbe bi torej morale institucije zagotoviti, da se dokumenti izdajajo prek skupnega vmesnika za njihove registre dokumentov, in bi morale zagotoviti enotno dostopno točko.
In the context of this Regulation therefore the institutions should ensure that documents are supplied through a common interface for their registers of documents, and they should provide for a single point of access.
Če so dokumenti poslani v elektronski obliki, bi moral format ustrezati odprtim standardom.
When supplied electronically, documents should be in formats adhering to Open Standards.
Prizadevanje za preglednost zagotovo ne bo uspešno, če se bodo morali državljani posluževati posebne lastniške programske opreme, ki bo skladna z informacijskim okoljem institucij.
The drive for transparency is sure to fail if citizens are obliged to make use of specific proprietary software which is compatible with the institutions' IT environment.
Poročevalec je podal predloge sprememb (člena 10 in 11) in rok, v katerem naj institucije zagotovijo dobavo dokumentov v formatu, ki ustreza odprtim standardom, in da zagotovijo, da informacijsko okolje institucij ne bo predstavljalo ovire za dostop javnosti do dokumentov.
Your rapporteur has introduced amendments (Articles 10 and 11) including a deadline for institutions to ensure that documents are supplied in formats adhering to Open Standards and to ensure that the institutions' IT environments does not form a barrier to public access to documents.
Poročevalec z namenom zagotoviti parlamentarni nadzor poudarja, da mora imeti Parlament ustrezen nadzor nad občutljivimi dokumenti.
With a view to ensuring parliamentary scrutiny your rapporteur emphasises that the Parliament must have adequate control with regard to sensitive documents.
Dvostranski sporazumi s tretjimi državami in mednarodnimi organizacijami Svetu in Komisiji ne bi smeli preprečevati izmenjave informacij s Parlamentom.
Bilateral agreements with third countries or international organisations should not prohibit the Council and the Commission from sharing information with the Parliament.
V tem okviru je pomembno, da se določijo roki za prilagoditev postopkovnih pravil institucij in da Komisija preveri skladnost teh pravil z revidirano uredbo.
In this context it is important that deadlines be set for the adaptation of the rules of procedure of the institutions and that the Commission should verify the conformity of these rules with the revised Regulation.
Poleg tega bi morali tako kot pri sedanji uredbi zahtevati, da Komisija pripravi poročilo o izvajanju revidirane uredbe in po potrebi pripravi priporočila za izboljšave.
Furthermore, as was the case with the current Regulation, the Commission should be requested to provide a report on the implementation of the revised Regulation and make recommendations, where required, for improvements.
Odbor za peticije poziva Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve, kot pristojni odbor, da v svoje poročilo vključi naslednje predloge sprememb:
The Committee on Petitions calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(2) Drugi pododstavek člena 1 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji opredeljuje pojem javnosti in pravi, da je Pogodba nov korak v procesu oblikovanja vse tesnejše zveze med narodi Evrope, v kateri se odločitve sprejemajo čim bolj javno in v kar najtesnejši povezavi z državljani.
(2) The second subparagraph of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
Omenjeno je rečeno tudi v členu 42 listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah in izjavi št. 17, priloženi maastrichtski pogodbi in laekenski deklaraciji, ki povezuje večjo preglednost pri postopku odločanja z izboljšanim dostopom javnosti do podatkov, kot je to določeno v členu 225 Pogodbe o ES, ki potrjuje demokratični značaj institucij in zaupanje javnosti v upravo.
This is reaffirmed in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Declaration No 17 annexed to the Treaty of Maastricht and the Laeken Declaration, which linked improved transparency of the decision-making process to improved public access to information as set out in Article 255 of the EC Treaty, which in turn confirms the democratic nature of the institutions and the public’s confidence in the administration.
Za prenos načela odprtosti v prakso bi bilo treba zagotoviti ustrezna sredstva in s tem državljanom zagotoviti večjo legitimnost, učinkovitost in odgovornost, obenem pa okrepiti načela demokracije in spoštovanja temeljnih pravic.
Adequate resources should be made available to put the principle of openness into practice, thereby achieving greater legitimacy, effectiveness and accountability to the citizen, as well as strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights.
Upravljanje z informacijami in dokumenti, upravljanje pravice javnosti do dostopa in komunikacija z državljani so dejavnosti, ki zahtevajo veliko sredstev.
Managing information and documents, administering the right of public access and communicating with citizens are resource-intensive activities.
Zagotavljanje primernih sredstev za te namene bi se moralo šteti kot potrebna naložba za zagotovitev učinkovitosti, uspešnosti in preglednosti institucij in organov Unije.
The provision of adequate resources for these purposes should be regarded as a necessary investment to ensure the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the Union 's institutions and bodies .
(a) na podlagi javnega ali zasebnega interesa določiti načela, pogoje in omejitve, ki urejajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (v nadaljnjem besedilu „institucije“), določene v členu 255 Pogodbe ES, da bi se javnosti odobril čim širši dostop do takih dokumentov;
(a) to define the principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission (hereinafter referred to as « the institutions » ) documents provided for in Article 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to grant the public the widest possible access to such documents;
(a) na podlagi javnega ali zasebnega interesa določiti načela, pogoje in omejitve, ki urejajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (v nadaljnjem besedilu „institucije“), določene v členu 255 Pogodbe ES, da bi se zagotovilo, da je javnosti omogočen čim širši dostop do takih dokumentov;
(a) to define the principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission (hereinafter referred to as “ the institutions ” ) documents provided for in Article 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to ensure that the public is given the widest possible access to such documents;
(b) določiti pravila, ki zagotavljajo čim lažje uresničevanje te pravice;
(b) to establish rules ensuring the easiest possible exercise of this right;
(c) spodbujati običajne upravne postopke za dostop do dokumentov .
(c) to promote good administrative practice on access to documents .
(c) zagotoviti običajne upravne postopke za dostop do dokumentov .
(c) to ensure good administrative practice on access to documents.
Obveznost institucij je zagotoviti odprtost in preglednost ter dobro upravno prakso.
The institutions are under an obligation to ensure openness and transparency as well as good administrative practice.