natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
C. ker ima v skladu s členom 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije „[V]sakdo [...] pravico, da institucije, organi, uradi in agencije Unije njegove zadeve obravnavajo nepristransko, pravično in v razumnem roku“,
C. whereas, according to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ‘Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union’,
D. ker je 1. marca 2007 nevladna organizacija, ki deluje na področju varstva okolja, zaprosila Komisijo za dostop do informacij in dokumentov v posesti generalnega direktorata za podjetništvo in industrijo ter nekdanjega podpredsednika komisije, pristojnega za podjetništvo in industrijo, ki zadevajo srečanja med Komisijo in predstavniki proizvajalcev avtomobilov, na katerih se je razpravljalo o vprašanju pristopa Komisije do izpustov ogljikovega dioksida osebnih vozil,
D. whereas, on 1 March 2007, a non-governmental organisation acting in the field of environmental protection asked the Commission for access to information and documents held by the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry and the former Vice-President of the Commission responsible for Enterprise and Industry, relating to meetings between the Commission and representatives of car manufacturers at which the issue of the Commission’s approach to carbon dioxide emissions from cars had been discussed,
E. ker je Komisija dovolila dostop do 15 od 18 pisem, ki so bila poslana tedanjemu komisarju Günterju Verheugenu, zavrnila pa je dostop do treh pisem, ki jih je poslal nemški proizvajalec avtomobilov Porsche, z utemeljitvijo, da bi njihovo razkritje oslabilo varstvo poslovnih interesov družbe,
E. whereas the Commission granted access to 15 out of 18 letters sent to then-Commissioner Günter Verheugen, but refused access to three letters sent by the German car manufacturer Porsche on the grounds that their disclosure would undermine protection of the company’s commercial interests,
F. ker člen 1(a) Uredbe 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije določa, da je namen te uredbe zagotoviti čim širši dostop do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije
F. whereas Article 1(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
G. ker je komisija pritožniku zavrnila dostop do ustreznih pisem podjetja Porsche AG na podlagi prvega odstavka člena 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001, ki določa, da „[I]nstitucije zavrnejo dostop do dokumenta, kadar bi razkritje oslabilo varstvo [...] poslovnih interesov fizičnih in pravnih oseb, vključno z intelektualno lastnino ...“,
G. whereas the Commission refused to grant the complainant access to the relevant letters from Porsche AG on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001, which provides that ‘ th e institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property ... ’ ,
H. ker je podjetje Porsche AG omenjena pisma poslalo v kontekstu posvetovanja Komisije s ključnimi zainteresiranimi stranmi glede revizije strategije Komisije za zmanjšanje emisij ogljikovega dioksida iz osebnih avtomobilov, ker je bilo zato verjetno, da tri pisma vsebujejo informacije o poslovnih odnosih podjetja Porsche AG, in ker bi jih Komisija zato lahko obravnavala, kot da sodijo v področje uporabe izjeme, določene v prvem odstavku člena 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001,
H. whereas the letters in question were sent by Porsche AG in the context of the Commission’s consultation of key stakeholders concerning the review of the Community strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger cars, whereas it was consequently likely that the three letters contained information on Porsche AG’s business relations, and whereas the Commission could therefore have regarded them as falling within the scope of the exception laid down in Article 4(2), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001,
I. ker so službe varuha človekovih pravic pregledale tri pisma podjetja Porsche AG, pa tudi izmenjavo elektronske pošte med Komisijo in tem podjetjem, v kateri je Komisija Porsche obvestila, da ne namerava razkriti teh treh pisem, in ker je varuh človekovih pravic na podlagi pregleda sklenil, da je Komisija neutemeljeno zavrnila popoln dostop do pisem podjetja Porsche AG na podlagi prvega odstavka člena 4(2) in delni dostop na podlagi člena 4(6) Uredbe 1049/2001
I. whereas the Ombudsman’s services inspected the three letters from Porsche AG as well as an exchange of e-mails between the Commission and Porsche in which the Commission informed Porsche that it intended not to disclose the three letters, and whereas the Ombudsman, on the basis of the inspection, concluded that the Commission had wrongly refused full access to the letters from Porsche AG under Article 4(2), first paragraph, and partial access under Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001
Člen 4(6) Uredbe 1049/2001 se glasi: „Če velja katera od izjem le za dele zahtevanega dokumenta, se drugi deli dokumenta objavijo.“ , in ker je bil to primer nepravilnosti,
Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 reads as follows: ‘ If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released. ’ , and whereas this was an instance of maladministration,
J. ker je 27. oktobra 2008 varuh človekovih pravic pripravil osnutek priporočila za Komisijo, v katerem je opredelil podrobnosti svoje analize dejstev in pravne analize ter v njem navedel, da bi morala Komisija dovoliti dostop do treh pisem, ki jih je podjetje Porsche AG poslalo nekdanjemu podpredsedniku Komisije Günterju Verheugenu, v celoti ali razmisliti o njihovem delnem razkritju,
J. whereas, on 27 October 2008, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to the Commission setting out the details of his factual and legal analysis, in which he stated that the Commission should grant access to the three letters sent by Porsche AG to the former Vice-President, Günter Verheugen, in their entirety or consider partially disclosing them,
K. ker je varuh človekovih pravic na podlagi člena 195 PES (sedanji člen 228 PDEU) zaprosil Komisijo, naj v roku treh mesecev, torej do 31. januarja 2009, poda podrobno mnenje,
K. whereas the Ombudsman, on the basis of Article 195 EC (now Article 228 TFEU), asked the Commission to give a detailed opinion within three months, that is, by 31 January 2009,
L. ker Komisija v trimesečnem roku, določenem v členu 228 PDEU, ni podala mnenja, temveč je šestkrat zahtevala podaljšanje roka za predložitev svojega podrobnega poročila v odgovor na osnutek priporočila varuha človekovih pravic, in ker je julija in potem ponovno septembra 2009 varuh človekovih pravic obvestil sekretariat Komisije o svoji nameri, da Parlamentu predloži posebno poročilo, če ne prejme odgovora na osnutek priporočila,
L. whereas the Commission did not give its opinion within the three-month deadline provided for in Article 228 TFEU, but instead requested six extensions of the deadline for submitting its detailed opinion on the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation, and whereas, in July and again in September 2009, the Ombudsman informed the Commission Secretariat of his intention to present a Special Report to Parliament if he did not receive an answer to his draft recommendation,
M. ker je nova Komisija, ko je nastopila mandat, dovolila dostop do pisem, vendar je do tega prišlo več kot 15 mesecev po tem, ko je bil izdan osnutek priporočila, namesto v treh mesecih, kot je določeno v statutu varuha človekovih pravic in v členu 228 PDEU,
M. whereas the new Commission, once it had had taken office, did indeed grant access to the letters, but whereas this occurred more than 15 months after the draft recommendation had been issued rather than the three months stipulated in the Ombudsman’s Statute and in Article 228 TFEU,
N. ker je Komisija, s tem ko je pri preiskavi varuha človekovih pravic v zadevi 676/2008/RT odlagala svoj odgovor na osnutek priporočila za 15 mesecev, kršila svojo obveznost, da z njim sodeluje lojalno in v dobri veri, in ker to ne škodi le medinstitucionalnemu dialogu, temveč tudi javni podobi EU,
N. whereas the Commission, by delaying its reply to the draft recommendation for 15 months, breached its obligation to cooperate with the Ombudsman sincerely and in good faith during his inquiry into case 676/2008/RT, and whereas this is detrimental not only to interinstitutional dialogue, but also to the EU’s public image,
O. ker je varuh človekovih pravic ugotovil zamude Komisije v še eni zadevi, ki vključuje dostop do dokumentov (355/2007(TN)FOR), v kateri bi morala Komisija predložiti svoje podrobno mnenje v odgovor na osnutek priporočila varuha človekovih pravic do 31. oktobra 2009, vendar do danes tega še ni storila,
O. whereas the Ombudsman has identified delays by the Commission in a further case involving access to documents (355/2007(TN)FOR), in which the Commission should have submitted its detailed opinion to the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation by 31 October 2009, but has still not done so to date,
P. ker je Komisija odgovorila na pritožbe v prvotnem roku le v štirih od 22 primerov, ki jih je obravnaval varuh človekovih pravic v letu 2009 in so vključevali dostop do dokumentov; ker je v 14 od teh 22 primerov svoj odgovor predložila več kot 30 dni prepozno, v šestih primerih pa je svoj odgovor predložila vsaj 80 dni prepozno,
P. whereas the Commission met the original deadlines for replying to complaints in only four of the 22 cases involving access to documents dealt with by the Ombudsman in 2009; whereas in 14 of these 22 cases it submitted its reply more than 30 days late, and in six cases it submitted its reply at least 80 days late,
4. opozarja, da mora Komisija v povezavi s posvetovanjem, ki je določeno v členu 4(4) Uredbe 1049/2001, določiti rok, v katerem mora avtor dokumenta tretje stranke odgovoriti, ter poudarja, da bi morala Komisija to pristojnost izvajati na način, ki bi ji omogočal spoštovanje lastnih rokov
Recalls that, in the context of the consultations provided for in Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001, the Commission must establish a deadline for the third-party author of a document to reply, and underlines that the Commission should exercise this power in a way that enables it to abide by its own deadlines
5. opozarja na ustrezno sodno prakso, ki zadeva načelo lojalnega sodelovanja (člen 4(3) PEU), v skladu s katerim so institucije Unije dolžne sodelovati v dobri veri pri svojih medsebojnih odnosih, ter ugotavlja, da je ta obveznost jasno določena v novem členu 13(2) PEU;
Recalls the relevant case-law concerning the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), according to which the Union institutions have a duty to cooperate in good faith in their relations with each other, and notes that this obligation is clearly stipulated in the new Article 13(2) TEU;
8. meni, da utegne Parlament v primeru, če Komisija ne poda takšne zaveze in/ali vztraja pri svoji nekooperativni praksi v odnosu do varuha človekovih pravic, sankcionirati Komisijo ter da lahko te sankcije vključujejo prerazporeditev dela proračuna Komisije za upravne odhodke v rezervo;
Considers that in the case that the Commission fails to give such an undertaking and/or persists in its uncooperative practices towards the Ombudsman, Parliament may sanction the Commission, and that such sanctions may include inter alia placing a portion of the Commission’s budget for administrative expenditure into reserve;
Posebna poročila so skrajno orožje Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
Special reports are the European Ombudsman’s ultimate weapon.
Sklepi varuha človekovih pravic niso pravno zavezujoči, zato se zanaša na zmožnost prepričevanja, na sposobnost, da prepriča z utemeljenim argumentiranjem, ter včasih na publiciteto in moč javnega mnenja.
The Ombudsman’s decisions are not legally binding, and he therefore relies on persuasion, on the ability to convince through reasoned argument and, from time to time, on publicity and the force of public opinion.
Zelo majhno število posebnih poročil, ki jih je Evropski varuh človekovih pravic predstavil Evropskemu parlamentu (17 po letu 1995), dokazuje kooperativni pristop institucij EU v veliki večini primerov.
The very small number of special reports that the European Ombudsman had to present to the European Parliament (17 since 1995) is evidence of the co-operative approach adopted by the EU Institutions in the overwhelming majority of cases.
V ozadju tega sodelovanja pa je tudi pristojnost podajanja posebnih poročil Evropskemu parlamentu.
Part of the background to that co-operation, however, is the existence of the power to make a special report to the European Parliament.
Vedenje, da bi bilo posebno poročilo lahko naslednji korak, zlasti po pripravi osnutka priporočila, pogosto pomaga prepričati institucijo ali organ, da spremeni svoje stališče.
Especially when a draft recommendation is made, the knowledge that the next step could be a special report often helps to persuade the institution or body concerned to alter its position.
Zato bi se moralo posebna poročila predložiti zgolj v povezavi s pomembnimi zadevami, pri katerih bi Parlament lahko pomagal prepričati zadevne institucije ali organe, naj spremenijo svoje stališče.
Special reports should, therefore only be presented in relation to important matters, on which the Parliament could help persuade the institution or body concerned to alter its position.
Evropski parlament je kot politično telo suveren pri obravnavanju posebnih poročil varuha človekovih pravic, tako glede svojih postopkov kot glede vsebine pristopa in ukrepov.
As a political body, the European Parliament is sovereign in dealing with the Ombudsman’s special reports, as regards both its procedures and the substance of its approach and actions.
Pri obravnavanju posebnega poročila Parlament vedno upošteva, da je pravica pritožbe pri varuhu človekovih pravic – ob pravici do peticije pri Evropskem parlamentu – temeljna državljanska pravica, ki je čvrsto vključena v Listino o temeljnih pravic, ta pa ima po Lizbonski pogodbi sedaj pravno veljavo.
When considering a special report, the Parliament always takes into account that the right to apply to the Ombudsman, alongside the right to petition the European Parliament, is a fundamental right of citizenship that is firmly enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which now, under the Treaty of Lisbon, has legal value.
Marca 2007 je nevladna organizacija, ki deluje na področju varstva okolja, zaprosila za dostop do nekaterih dokumentov v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
In March 2007 a non-governmental organisation acting in the field of environmental protection, asked for access to certain documents under Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Dokumenti zadevajo srečanja med Evropsko komisijo in proizvajalci avtomobilov, na katerih se je razpravljalo o vprašanju pristopa Komisije do izpustov ogljikovega dioksida osebnih vozil.
The documents related to meetings between the European Commission and car manufacturers at which the issue of the Commission’s approach to carbon dioxide emissions from cars was discussed.
Novembra 2007 je Komisija dovolila vpogled v 15 od 18 pisem, ki so bila poslana tedanjemu komisarju Günterju Verheugnu.
In November 2007, the European Commission granted access to 15 out of 18 letters sent to the then Commissioner Günter Verheugen.
Zavrnila pa je dostop v primeru treh pisem, ki jih je poslal nemški proizvajalec avtomobilov Porsche, z utemeljitvijo, da bi njihovo razkritje oslabilo varstvo poslovnih interesov družbe.
However, in the case of 3 letters sent by the German car manufacturer Porsche, it refused access on the grounds that their disclosure would undermine the protection of the company’s commercial interests.
Pritožnik se je nato obrnil na Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic.
The complainant then turned to the European Ombudsman.
Septembra 2008 so službe varuha človekovih pravic opravile pregled pisem v prostorih Komisije.
In September 2008, the Ombudsman’s services carried out an inspection of the letters at the Commission’s premises.
Na podlagi tega pregleda je varuh človekovih pravic 27. oktobra 2008 sklenil, da je Komisija neutemeljeno zavrnila dostop do teh treh pisem.
On the basis of this inspection, the Ombudsman concluded on 27 October 2008 that the Commission had wrongly refused access to the three letters.
Zato je za Komisijo pripravil osnutek priporočila, po katerem bi morala dovoliti dostop do teh pisem v celoti ali razmisliti o tem, da jih deloma razkrije.
He therefore made a draft recommendation to the Commission that it should grant access to these letters in their entirety, or consider partially disclosing them.
V skladu s členom 3(6) Statuta Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament, je imela Komisija tri mesece časa, da s podrobnim mnenjem odgovori na osnutek priporočila varuha.
According to Article 3 (6) of the Statute laid down for the European Ombudsman by the European Parliament, the European Commission had three months in which to give a detailed opinion on his draft recommendation.
Rok, do katerega bi morala Komisija odgovoriti, je bil 31. januar 2009.
The deadline for the Commission to respond was, therefore, 31 January 2009.
Komisija ni odgovorila in je 30. januarja zaprosila za podaljšanje tega roka.
The Commission did not reply and asked for an extension to this deadline on 30 January 2009.
Pozneje je zaprosila za dodatna podaljšanja tega roka, in sicer 23. februarja 2009, 26. marca 2009, 29. aprila 2009, 29. maja 2009 in 26. junija 2009.
It subsequently asked for further extensions to this deadline on 23 February 2009, on 26 March 2009, on 29 April 2009, on 29 May 2009 and on 26 June 2009.
Varuh človekovih pravic je 3. julija 2009, po tem, ko ji je odobril vse prošnje za podaljšanje prvotnega roka, pisal Komisiji in navedel, da ni jasno, zakaj priprava podrobnega mnenja traja tako dolgo, da je zanjo potrebnih šest podaljšanj že tako dolgega roka.
Having granted the European Commission all its requests for extensions to the original deadline, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission on 3 July 2009 stating that it was unclear why the drafting of a detailed opinion was taking such a long time, that it required six extensions of an already generous deadline.
Komisija je odgovorila 17. julija in navedla, da ne more podati vsebinskega odgovora, ker se še vedno posvetuje s tretjo stranko (Porsche).
The Commission responded on 17 July, stating that it was not in a position to give a substantive reply because it was still consulting with the third party (Porsche).
Evropska komisija je 30. septembra 2009, deset mesecev po osnutku priporočila, obvestila varuha človekovih pravic, da se je odločila dovoliti delen dostop do pisem in da je za ta namen oblikovala njihove prirejene različice.
On 30 September 2009, 10 months after the draft recommendation, the European Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to grant partial access to these letters and had created edited versions for the purpose.
Navedla je tudi, da namerava o svoji odločitvi obvestiti Porsche.
It also indicated its intention to inform Porsche of its decision.
27. oktobra 2009 je Komisija pojasnila, da se odločitev, da se obvesti Porsche, prevaja v nemščino ter da bo podjetju posredovana v začetku novembra.
On 27 October 2009, the Commission explained that the decision to inform Porsche had been sent for translation into German and would be sent to the company in early November.
9. novembra 2009 je Evropski varuh človekovih pravic poslal Komisiji še eno pismo, v katerem je zahteval kopijo obvestila, ki je bilo poslano podjetju Porsche, ter zaprosil, da se ga obvešča o zaključku postopka odobritve dostopa do pisem.
On 9 November 2009, the European Ombudsman sent another letter to the Commission, in which he requested a copy of the notification letter sent to Porsche and asked to be informed about the conclusion of the procedure for granting access to these letters.
4. decembra 2009 so službe Komisije po telefonu obvestile urad varuha človekovih pravic, da bo obvestilo v kratkem poslano podjetju Porsche.
On 4 December 2009, the Commission’s services informed the Ombudsman’s office by telephone that the notification letter would be sent shortly to Porsche.
Evropski varuh človekovih pravic do datuma predložitve posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu 24. februarja 2010 ni bil obveščen niti o pismu z obvestilom niti o ukrepu odobritve dostopa do pisem.
Until the date of the submission of his Special Report to the European Parliament on 24 February 2010, the European Ombudsman had not been informed of either the notification letter, or of the act of granting access to the letters.
Komisija je po tem, ko je nastopila mandat v novi zasedbi, varuh človekovih pravic pa je predložil svoje posebno poročilo, dejansko dovolila dostop do pisem.
Once the new Commission had taken office, and the Ombudsman had submitted his Special Report, the Commission did indeed grant access to the letters.
Do tega pa je prišlo več kot 15 mesecev po pripravi osnutka priporočila, namesto v treh mesecih, kot je v statutu varuha človekovih pravic določil Evropski parlament in kot je določeno v členu 228 PDEU.
This, however, occurred more than 15 months after the draft recommendation had been made rather than the three months prescribed by the European Parliament in the Ombudsman’s Statute and by Article 228 of the TFEU.
Evropska komisija je v različnih sporočilih o tej zadevi pojasnila, da ni mogla izpolniti svoje dolžnosti odgovora na osnutek priporočila, ker so bila v teku posvetovanja s Porschejem glede predlaganega razkritja teh dokumentov.
In its various communications on the matter, the European Commission explained that it could not comply with its obligation to reply to the draft recommendation because of ongoing consultations with Porsche concerning the proposed disclosure of the documents in question.
Komisija je za trajanje teh posvetovanj ponudila dve utemeljitvi: prvič – obstajala je možnost, da se doseže pozitiven razplet pogajanj s Porschejem glede predlaganega razkritja, in drugič – Porscheju je bilo treba zagotoviti razumen rok, da bi lahko uporabil pravna sredstva zoper odločitev Komisije, da razkrije omenjene dokumente.
The Commission justified the length of the said consultations by putting forward two arguments: firstly, that there was a prospect of achieving a positive outcome in the negotiations with Porsche as regards the proposed disclosure, and secondly, that there was a need to give Porsche a reasonable period of time to take legal action against the Commission’s decision to disclose the documents in question.
Kar zadeva prvo utemeljitev Evropske komisije je treba opozoriti, da mora v okviru posvetovanj, predvidenih v Uredbi 1049/2001, Komisija določiti rok, v katerem mora avtor dokumenta tretje stranke odgovoriti.
As regards the European Commission’s first argument, it has to be recalled, that in the framework of the consultations provided for in Regulation 1049/2001, the Commission must establish a deadline for the third party author of a document to reply.
Gotovo bi morala Komisija izvajati to svojo pristojnost tako, da bi ji to omogočilo izpolnjevanje lastnih rokov.
The Commission should certainly exercise this power in a way that enables it to abide by its own deadlines.
Kar zadeva drugo utemeljitev Komisije, je treba opozoriti, da potreba po zagotovitvi možnosti Porscheju, da uveljavi svoje zakonite pravice, ne more opravičiti izjemne zamude Komisije najprej pri odgovoru na osnutek priporočila in nato pri izvršitvi svoje odločitve, da Porsche obvesti o svoji nameri, da razkrije dokumente.
As regards the Commission’s second argument, it must be noticed that the need to allow Porsche to exercise its legal rights cannot justify the Commission’s extraordinary delay in first replying to the draft recommendation and subsequently in carrying out its decision to inform Porsche of its intention to release the documents.