natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To je jasno navedeno v členu 255 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti.
This is clearly stated in the Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC):
„Vsi državljani Unije in vse fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivališčem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni od držav članic imajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije“.
"Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents".
Poleg tega lizbonska pogodba pravi
The Lisbon Treaty states in addition:
„Odločitve se sprejemajo kar najbolj odprto in v kar najtesnejši povezavi z državljani.“.
"Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen".
Člen 10-3 Pogodbe o EU)
(Article 10-3 of the TEU)
„Institucije, organi, uradi in agencije Unije zaradi spodbujanja dobrega upravljanja in zagotovitve sodelovanja civilne družbe, pri svojem delu kar najbolj upoštevajo načelo javnosti delovanja“.
"In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible."
(Člen 15-1 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije)
(Article 15-1 of the TFEU)
Uredba št. 1049/2001 je bila pomemben korak k večji odprtosti.
The present regulation 1049/2001 was a significant step towards greater openness.
V šestih letih, odkar se je začela izvajati, je prispevala k vzpostavljanju bolj pregledne upravne kulture v evropskih institucijah.
In the six years since its implementation, it has contributed to the creation of a more transparent culture of administration in the European Institutions.
Na ta proces so pomembno vplivale odločitve, ki jih je na podlagi Uredbe št. 1049/2001 sprejelo Sodišče.
The decisions that the Court of Justice has made on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001 have been important to this process.
Zadnja med temi je bila zelo pomembna sodba Sodišča v tako imenovanem primeru Turco (T-84/03 Turco proti Svetu).
The last of these was the very significant judgment that the Court made in the so-called Turco case (T-84/03 Turco v. Council).
Sodišče je odločilo, da mora tudi Svet omogočiti dostop do nasvetov svoje pravne službe, kadar ti nasveti zadevajo zakonodajni akt.
The Court decided that the Council should also give access to the advice of its legal service, when this advice concerns a legislative act.
Sodišče je menilo, da načelo preglednosti in odprtosti v procesu odločanja predstavljata "prevladujoč javni interes", ki opravičuje razkritje pravnih nasvetov.
The Court believes that the principles of transparency and openness in the decision-making process constitute an "overriding public interest" that justifies the disclosure of the legal advice.
Sodišče je v zaključku navedlo, da „preglednost ... daje institucijam večjo legitimnost v očeh evropskih državljanov in povečuje njihovo zaupanje“.
In its conclusions the Court states that: "openness...contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increases their confidence in them".
Komisija je 30. aprila 2008 predstavila predlog o spremembi Uredbe št. 1049/2001.
The Commission gave its proposal for amending Regulation 1049/2001 on 30 April 2008.
Evropski parlament je v resoluciji z dne 4. aprila 2008 zaprosil za pregled uredbe.
The European Parliament asked for a review of the Regulation in its resolution of 4 April 2006.
V obrazložitvi predloga je Komisija poskusila ustvariti vtis, da je izvedla spremembe, ki jih je zahteval Parlament.
In the Explanatory Statement of the Proposal, the Commission tries to give the impression that it has made the changes for which the Parliament has been asking.
Žal pa to ne drži.
Regrettably this is not at all the case.
Prav nasprotno, mnogi predlogi spremembe Komisije bi tam, kjer je Parlament zahteval več odprtosti, znižali sedanje standarde.
Where the Parliament asked for more openness, on the contrary, many amendments suggested by the Commission would lower the present standard.
Najbolj skrajen med temi je predlog spremembe Komisije k členu 3, ki bi opazno zožil opredelitev dokumenta.
The most severe of these is the amendment the Commission is proposing to Article 3 which would significantly limit the definition of a document.
Če bi do te spremembe prišlo, bi bil v prihodnosti javnosti dostopnih le del vseh dokumentov, ki so ji dostopni danes.
If this change were realised, it would mean that only a part of the documents currently open to the public would continue be so in the future.
Poročevalka meni, da mora ostati sedanja opredelitev nespremenjena, saj zajema vse bistvene dokumente, ne le evidentiranih.
In the Rapporteur's opinion, the present definition should remain unchanged as it covers all the relevant documents - not only the registered ones.
Naslednji predlog spremembe, ki se zdi poročevalki zaskrbljujoč, zadeva pravico države članice, da zadrži dokumente (člen 5).
Another amendment that the Rapporteur finds worrying concerns the right of the Member States to withhold documents in Article 5.
Formulacija, ki jo je predlagala Komisija, bi državam članicam podelila neomejeno pravico, da se sklicujejo na svojo zakonodajo.
The formulation proposed by the Commission would give the Member States an unlimited right to appeal to their own legislation.
Institucije bi lahko upoštevale le razloge, ki bi temeljili na uredbi.
The institutions could only consider reasons based on the Regulation.
Ta pravica bi oslabila načelo preglednosti in ga popolnoma prepustila presoji držav članic.
Such a right would water down the principle of transparency and leave it completely at the discretion of Member States.
Izjeme, navedene v členu 4 uredbe, bi morale tudi v tem primeru zadostovati.
Here again, the exceptions listed in Article 4 of the Regulation should be sufficient.
Če to ni tako, je treba spremeniti člen 4, ne pa podeliti državam članicam neomejene pravice.
If they are not, changes should be made in Article 4 and not by giving the Member States unlimited rights.
Komisija je v celoti prezrla predloge, ki jih je Parlament predstavil v svoji resoluciji z dne 4. aprila 2006 v zvezi z možnostjo, da bi Parlament uresničeval svojo pravico do demokratičnega pregleda.
The Commission has totally ignored the proposals made by the Parliament in the resolution of 4 April 2006 concerning the possibilities for the Parliament to exercise its right for democratic scrutiny.
Parlament naj ima dostop do občutljivih dokumentov, da lahko v celoti opravlja svoje naloge – o načinu, kako ravnati s takšnimi dokumenti, pa se lahko dogovorijo institucije.
The Parliament must have access to sensitive documents in order to fully discharge its duties - the arrangements on handling such documents can be agreed between the institutions.
Nekatere predloge spremembe, ki jih je predstavila Komisija, pa Parlament vendarle odobrava.
There are, however, amendments made by the Commission that the Parliament can welcome.
To so predvsem naslednji: razširitev pravice do dostopa na vse fizične in pravne osebe, ne le na državljane EU, kot določa sedanja uredba; predpisi glede okolja, ki izhajajo iz aarhuške konvencije in izboljšan neposredni dostop do zakonodajnih dokumentov.
These are above all: the broadening of the right of access to any natural or legal person and not just EU citizens as in the present regulation; the environmental provisions stemming from the Aarhus Convention and improved direct access to legislative documents.
Nad temi pozitivnimi predlogi spremembe pa žal prevladajo tisti, ki so po mnenju Parlamenta negativni.
These positive amendments are regrettably outweighed by those the parliament considers to be negative.
Zaradi teh negativnih predlogov spremembe poročevalka meni, da bi bilo bolje ohraniti sedanjo uredbo, kot sprejeti spremembe, ki bi jo oslabile.
Given these negative amendments, the Rapporteur believes it would be preferable to remain with the present Regulation rather than adopt changes that would water it down.
Odbor za ustavne zadeve poziva Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve kot pristojni odbor, da vključi v svoje poročilo naslednje predloge sprememb:
The Committee on Constitutional Affairs calls on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
Napredek informacijske tehnologije lahko pozitivno, pa tudi negativno učinkuje na dostop do informacij.
The progress of information technology can have positive and negative effects on public access.
Institucije bi si morale prizadevati za spodbujanje pozitivnih učinkov in zmanjševanje negativnih.
The institutions should try to promote the positive effects minimise the negative ones.
(a) „dokument“ pomeni neko vsebino ne glede na to, kakšen je njen medij (napisana na papirju ali shranjena v elektronski obliki ali kot zvočni, vizualni ali avdiovizualni zapis) , ki ga je pripravila institucija in ga je uradno poslala enemu ali več prejemnikom ali kako drugače evidentirala, ali ki ga je institucija prejela ; podatki iz sistemov za elektronsko shranjevanje, obdelavo ali priklic so dokumenti, če jih je mogoče izvleči v obliki tiskalniškega izpisa ali elektronskega zapisa z orodji, ki so na voljo za uporabo sistema;
(a) « document » means any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) drawn-up by an institution and formally transmitted to one or more recipients or otherwise registered, or received by an institution; data contained in electronic storage, processing and retrieval systems are documents if they can be extracted in the form of a printout or electronic-format copy using the available tools for the exploitation of the system;
(a) „dokument“ pomeni neko vsebino ne glede na to, kakšen je njen medij (napisana na papirju ali shranjena v elektronski obliki ali kot zvočni, vizualni ali avdiovizualni zapis) o vprašanju, nanašajočem se na politiko, dejavnosti ali odločitve s področja pristojnosti institucije ; informacije iz sistemov za elektronsko shranjevanje, obdelavo ali priklic (vključno z zunanjimi sistemi, ki se uporabljajo za delo institucije) so dokument ali dokumenti, če jih je mogoče izvleči v obliki enega ali več tiskalniških izpisov ali elektronskih zapisov z orodji, ki so razumno na voljo za uporabo sistema;
(a) “ document ” means any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility; information contained in electronic storage, processing and retrieval systems (including external systems used for the institution's work) shall constitute a document or documents if it can be extracted in the form of one or more printouts or electronic-format copies using any reasonably available tools for the exploitation of the system;
Predlog spremembe ponovno vzpostavlja veljavno temeljno opredelitev dokumenta, saj bi predlog Komisije dovoljeval samovoljno omejevanje pravice do dostopa.
The amendment restores the present formulation of the basic definition of a document, as the Commission's proposal would allow for arbitrary limitation of the right to access.
Dodatno besedilo določa dostop do podatkov v elektronskih podatkovnih bazah, da se dosežejo cilji iz nove uvodne izjave 18.
The additional wording makes provision for access to information in electronic databases in order to meet the objective described in the new recital 18.
Člen 4 – odstavek 2 – točka (c)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) pravnih nasvetov in sodnih in arbitražnih postopkov ter postopkov reševanja sporov;
(c) legal advice and court, arbitration and dispute settlement proceedings;
(c) pravnih nasvetov in sodnih in arbitražnih postopkov ter postopkov reševanja sporov, z izjemo pravnih nasvetov v zvezi s postopki sprejemanja zakonodajnega ali nezakonodajnega akta, ki se splošno uporablja ;
(c) legal advice and court, arbitration and dispute settlement proceedings , except as regards legal advice in connection with procedures leading to a legislative act or a non-legislative act of general application ;
Imena, nazivi in funkcije nosilcev javne funkcije, javnih uslužbencev in zastopnikov interesnih skupin v zvezi z njihovimi poklicnimi dejavnostmi se razkrijejo, razen če bi to v posebnih okoliščinah negativno vplivalo na zadevno osebo.
Names, titles and functions of public office holders, civil servants and interest representatives in relation with their professional activities shall be disclosed unless, given the particular circumstances, disclosure would adversely affect the persons concerned.
Drugi osebni podatki se razkrijejo v skladu s pogoji o zakoniti obdelavi takih podatkov, določenimi v zakonodaji ES o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov .
Other personal data shall be disclosed in accordance with the conditions regarding lawful processing of such data laid down in EC legislation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data .
Osebni podatki se ne razkrijejo, če bi takšno razkritje ogrozilo zasebnost ali integriteto zadevne osebe.
Personal data shall not be disclosed if such disclosure would harm the privacy or the integrity of the person concerned.
Do takšne grožnje ne pride:
Such harm does not arise:
– če se podatki nanašajo le na poklicne dejavnosti zadevne osebe, razen če obstaja razlog za domnevo – odvisno od posebnih okoliščin –, da bi razkritje negativno vplivalo na to osebo;
– if the data relate solely to the professional activities of the person concerned unless, given the particular circumstances, there is reason to assume that disclosure would adversely affect that person;
– če se podatki nanašajo le na javno osebo, razen če obstaja razlog za domnevo – odvisno od posebnih okoliščin –, da bi razkritje negativno vplivalo na to osebo ali njene sorodnike;
– if the data relate solely to a public person unless, given the particular circumstances, there is reason to assume that disclosure would adversely affect that person or other persons related to him or her;
– če so bili podatki že objavljeni s privolitvijo osebe, ki jo zadevajo.
– if the data have already been published with the consent of the person concerned.
Osebni podatki se kljub temu razkrijejo, če prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
Personal data shall nevertheless be disclosed if an overriding public interest requires disclosure.
V teh primerih mora institucija ali organ javni interes točno opredeliti.
In those cases, the institution or body shall be required to specify the public interest.
Navesti mora razloge, zakaj javni interes v določenem primeru prevlada nad interesi zadevne osebe.
It shall give reasons why, in the specific case, the public interest outweighs the interests of the person concerned.
Če institucija ali organ zavrne dostop do dokumenta na osnovi odstavka 1, preuči, ali je do dokumenta mogoče dovoliti delni dostop .
Where an institution or body refuses access to a document on the basis of paragraph 1, it shall consider whether partial access to that document is possible .
Predlog Komisije ne upošteva potrebe po pravilni uskladitvi temeljnih pravic, ki so v igri, niti ne odraža sodbe Sodišča prve stopnje je v zadevi Bavarian Lager.
The Commission proposal does not do justice to the need for a right balance between the fundamental rights at stake neither does it reflect the judgement of the Court of First Instance in Bavarian Lager.
Pri dokumentih, za katere veljajo izjeme glede varstva osebnih podatkov ali poslovnih interesov, ter pri dokumentih občutljive narave lahko, če je potrebno, izjeme veljajo tudi po tem obdobju.
In the case of documents covered by the exceptions relating to the protection of personal data or commercial interests and in the case of sensitive documents, the exceptions may, if necessary, continue to apply after this period.
Izjeme, določene v tem členu, se ne uporabljajo za dokumente, poslane med postopkom sprejemanja zakonodajnega akta ali nezakonodajnega akta, ki se splošno uporablja .
The exceptions as laid down in this Article shall not apply to documents transmitted in the framework of procedures leading to a legislative act or a non-legislative act of general application.
Če se prošnja nanaša na dokument, ki izvira iz države članice in ki ni dokument, poslan med postopkom sprejemanja zakonodajnega akta ali nezakonodajnega akta, ki se splošno uporablja, se je treba posvetovati z organi zadevne države članice.
Where an application concerns a document originating from a Member State, other than documents transmitted in the framework of procedures leading to a legislative act or a non-legislative act of general application, the authorities of that Member State shall be consulted.
Institucija, ki ima dokument, ga razkrije, razen če država članica ne zagotovi razlogov za njegovo zadržanje na podlagi izjem iz člena 4 ali posebnih določb nacionalne zakonodaje, ki onemogočajo razkritje zadevnega dokumenta .
The institution holding the document shall disclose it unless the Member State gives reasons for withholding it, based on the exceptions referred to in Article 4 or on specific provisions in its own legislation preventing disclosure of the document concerned .
Institucija, ki ima dokument, ga razkrije, razen če država članica ne zagotovi razlogov za njegovo zadržanje na podlagi izjem iz člena 4.
The institution holding the document shall disclose it unless the Member State gives reasons for withholding it, based on the exceptions referred to in Article 4.
Institucija upošteva razloge, ki jih je navedla država članica.
The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of reasons given by the Member State.
Države članice ne bi smele imeti absolutne pravice sklicevati se na lastno zakonodajo.
The Member States should not be given the absolute right to invoke their own legislation.
Izjeme iz člena 4 naj bi bile zadosten razlog za zavrnitev dostopa.
The exceptions of Article 4 should be sufficient reason for denying access.
Če bi časovni rok podaljšali na 30 dni, kot predvideva predlog Komisije, bi bil to korak nazaj.
Extending this timeline to 30 days, as foreseen in the Commission proposal, constitutes a setback.
30 delovnih (!) dni, kot predlaga Komisija, bi bil negativen zgled v primerjavi z vsemi nacionalnimi zakoni o dostopu do informacij v EU.
30 working (!) days, as proposed by the Commission, would constitute a negative example compared to all national access to information laws within the EU.
Člen 9 – odstavek 7
Article 9 – paragraph 7
Komisija in Svet zagotovita ustrezen nadzor s strani Evropskega parlamenta za dokumente občutljive narave v skladu z dogovori med institucijami , ki se objavijo .
The Commission and the Council shall ensure adequate supervision by the European Parliament regarding sensitive documents in accordance with arrangements agreed between the institutions , which shall be made public .
Parlamentu je treba zagotoviti dostop do občutljivih dokumentov, da lahko v celoti izvaja svoje naloge demokratičnega nadzora.
The Parliament must be granted access to sensitive documents to be able fully to perform its duty of democratic scrutiny.
Člen 12 – odstavek -1 (novo)
Article 12 – paragraph -1 (new )
Institucije, če je mogoče, zagotovijo, da so dokumenti neposredno dostopni javnosti v elektronski obliki ali prek registra v skladu s predpisi institucije.
The institutions shall as far as possible make documents directly accessible to the public in electronic form or through a register in accordance with the rules of the institution concerned.
Dokumenti, pripravljeni ali prejeti med postopki za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov EU ali nezakonodajnih aktov, ki se splošno uporabljajo, so neposredno dostopni javnosti ob upoštevanju členov 4 in 9 .
Documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of EU legislative acts or non-legislative acts of general application shall, subject to Articles 4 and 9 , be made directly accessible to the public.
Zlasti dokumenti, pripravljeni ali prejeti med postopki za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov EU ali nezakonodajnih aktov, ki se splošno uporabljajo, so neposredno dostopni javnosti ob upoštevanju člena 9 .
In particular, documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of EU legislative acts or non-legislative acts of general application shall, subject to Article 9 , be made directly accessible to the public.
Logična posledica prejšnjega predloga spremembe.
A logical consequence of the previous amendment.
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 neposredni dostop do dokumentov, pripravljenih ali prejetih med postopki za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov ali nezakonodajnih aktov EU, 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 EU legislative acts or non-legislative acts of general application .
Javnost mora imeti na voljo enotno dostopno točko.
There should be a single point of access for the public.
Institucije organizirajo in vzdržujejo informacije, ki jih imajo, tako, da je javnosti lahko brez dodatnih naporov omogočen dostop do informacij.
The institutions shall organise and maintain the information in their possession in such a way that the public can be granted access to the information without additional effort.
Pomenil bi tudi korak v smeri pravega zakona o prostem dostopu do informacij EU, hkrati pa bi služil cilju iz nove uvodne izjave 18, in sicer da bi razvoj informacijske tehnologije moral olajšati izvrševanje pravice do dostopa, ne pa zmanjšati obseg informacij, ki je na voljo javnosti.
It also would mean a step in the direction of a genuine freedom of information act of the EU, while serving, simultaneously, the objective set out in the new recital 18, that the development of information technology should make it easier to exercise the right of access and not reduce the amount of information available to the public.
Pripravljavec/-ka mnenja
Rap porteur
Anneli Jäätteenmäki,
Anneli Jäätteenmäki
Odbor za mednarodno trgovino (INTA) pozdravlja predlog Evropske komisije, ki je pripravljen za oblikovanje prožnejših pravil in preprostejših postopkov za dostop javnosti do dokumentov evropskih institucij.
The Committee on International Trade (INTA) welcomes the Commission's proposal, which has been drawn up with the aim of establishing more flexible rules and simpler procedures for public access to the documents of the European institutions.
Predmet te revizije zadeva skoraj izključno področje civilnih svoboščin in je bolj pravne in ustavne narave; gre torej za zadeve, ki niso v pristojnosti odbora INTA.
The subject of this revision falls essentially within the area of civil liberties and legal and constitutional affairs, i.e. matters not within INTA's remit.
Pripravljavka mnenja kljub temu meni, da bi bilo treba predlog Komisije, čeprav ta uvršča dokumente o trgovinskih in industrijskih zadevah, povezanih s trgovinskimi spori in pogajanji, v kategorijo občutljivih dokumentov, obravnavati ločeno.
The rapporteur for this opinion nonetheless takes the view that, while the Commission proposal includes within the category of 'sensitive documents' documents on trade and industry matters related to trade disputes or trade negotiations, this class of document should be considered separately.
Cilj predlogov sprememb, ki jih vsebuje mnenje, je izboljšati povezavo med nameni in cilji prenovitve ter vsebino naših predlogov.
The amendments proposed in this opinion are aimed at bringing the content of the new proposals closer into line with the intentions and objectives of the reform.