natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
V prehodnem obdobju pred sprejetjem pravil, predpisanih v členu 298 PDEU, in na podlagi zahtev iz člena 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah institucije, organi, uradi in agencije na temelju kodeksa dobrega upravnega ravnanja sprejmejo in objavijo splošne smernice o obsegu obveznosti glede zaupnosti in varovanja poslovnih skrivnosti iz člena 339 PDEU, pri čemer obveznosti izhajajo iz dobrega in preglednega upravljanja in varovanja osebnih podatkov v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 45/2001.
In the transitional period before the adoption of the rules as envisaged by Article 298 TFEU and based on the requirements of Article 41 of the Charter , the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall , on the basis of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour , adopt and publish general guidelines on the scope of the obligations of confidentiality and professional secrecy set out in Article 339 TFEU, the obligations arising from sound and transparent administration and the protection of personal data in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.
S temi smernicami se v skladu s Kadrovskimi predpisi za uradnike Evropske unije in pogoji za zaposlitev, ki se uporabljajo za druge uslužbence Evropske unije, ter notranjimi pravili institucij opredelijo tudi sankcije za primer neizpolnjevanja obveznosti po tej uredbi.
Th o se guidelines shall also define the sanctions applicable in the event of failure to comply with this Regulation in accordance with the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union and in the institutions ' internal rules.
Člen 15 – naslov
Article 15 - title
Praksa upravne preglednosti v institucijah , organih, uradih in agencijah
Administrative transparency practice in the institutions , bodies, offices and agencies
Jasno je treba navesti, da določba zadeva vprašanja preglednosti.
It should be clearly stated that the provision rely to transparency issues.
Institucije, organi, uradi in agencije državljane pošteno in pregledno obvestijo o svoji organizacijski shemi in navedejo pristojnosti svojih notranjih enot, notranji potek dela in približne roke za postopke, ki so v njihovi pristojnosti, ter na katere službe se lahko državljani obrnejo, da bi pridobili podporo, informacije ali upravno varstvo.
The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall inform citizens, in a fair and transparent way, about their organisational chart by indicating the remit of their internal units, the internal workflow and indicative deadlines of the procedures falling within their remit, and the services to which citizens may refer to obtain support, information or administrative redress.
Posodobljeno v skladu z Lizbonsko pogodbo in novimi pravicami, ki izhajajo iz Listine o temeljnih pravicah, s katero se poveča obveznost zagotavljanja odprte in učinkovite evropske uprave, ki je dostopna državljanom, kot je določeno v členu 10 PEU in členu 298 PDEU.
Updated in line with the Lisbon Treaty and the new obligatory rights stemming from the Charter of Fundamental Rights enhancing the obligations for an open, efficient European administration accessible to citizens , as stated in Articles 10 TEU and Article 298 TFEU.
Dokumenti v zvezi s proračunom Evropske unije, njegovim izvrševanjem in upravičenci do sredstev in subvencij Evropske unije, so javni in dostopni državljanom.
Documents relating to the European Union budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of Union funds and grants shall be public and accessible to citizens.
Ti dokumenti so dostopni tudi na posebni spletni strani in v podatkovni bazi, ter v podatkovni bazi, ki zadeva finančno preglednost Unije.
Such documents shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, and on a database dealing with financial transparency in the Union .
Pomemben vidik preglednosti je vidnost proračunskega postopka in izvrševanja proračuna EU.
An important aspect of transparency is the visibility of the budgetary procedure and the implementation of the EU budget.
Člen 17 – naslov (novo)
Article 17 – heading (new)
Naslov V – Končne določbe
Title V - Final provisions
Člen 17 – odstavek 1a (novo)
Article 17 – paragraph 1a (new)
Komisija najpozneje do …* objavi poročilo o izvajanju te uredbe in oblikuje priporočila, vključno po potrebi s predlogi za revizijo te uredbe, ki so potrebni zaradi spremenjenih razmer, in z akcijskim programom ukrepov, ki naj bi jih sprejele institucije, organi, uradi ali agencije.
By ...*, at the latest, the Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of this Regulation and shall make recommendations, including, if appropriate, proposals for the revision of this Regulation which are necessitated by changes in the current situation and an action programme of measures to be taken by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.
* Dve leti po začetku veljavnosti te uredbe.
* Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
Za izvajanje pravnih aktov sta potrebna post facto ocena in celovito poročilo, ki vključuje morebitne predloge revizije.
The implementation of the legal act requires a post facto evaluation and an integral report including possible revision proposals.
V vlogi poročevalke o predlogu revizije Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 sem predlagala nekaj bistvenih sprememb predloga Evropske komisije, predstavljenega 30. aprila 2008.
As Rapporteur on the proposal for revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, I have put forward some crucial modifications to the European Commission's proposal presented on 30 April 2008.
Evropski parlament je o njih glasoval in jih podprl 11. marca 2009.
The European Parliament has voted on and supported those on 11 March 2009.
Po volitvah v Evropski parlament junija 2009 sem bila ponovno imenovana za poročevalko pri tej zadevi.
After the EP's election in June 2009 I was reappointed as Rapporteur on the dossier.
1. decembra je začela veljati Lizbonska pogodba, ki je v veliki meri spremenila pravni okvir za revizijo te uredbe.
On December 1st, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force and to a large extent modified the legal framework for the revision of this Regulation.
Ko je leta 2001 začela veljati sedanja uredba, sem bila prav tako poročevalka v tej zadevi.
When the current Regulation came into force in 2001, I was also Rapporteur in charge of this dossier.
Na podlagi povedanega so bila moja pričakovanja glede izboljšanja standardov za dostop javnosti do dokumentov Evropske unije, ko je Komisija leta 2008 predstavila svoj predlog revizije, zelo visoka.
In this perspective, when the Commission presented its proposal for revision in 2008, my expectations were very high as how the standards on public access to EU documents could be improved.
Kljub nekaterim pozitivnim – in povsem upravičenim – spremembam v predlogu, kot je širši krog upravičencev do dostopa po tej uredbi in skladnost z Aarhuško konvencijo, pa so nekatere druge po mojem mnenju korak nazaj glede preglednosti, zlasti če pomislimo, da večina zahtev Evropskega parlamenta iz leta 2006 ni bila upoštevanih.
However, despite some positive modifications inserted in the proposal which are clearly justifiable, like the extension of the beneficiaries of this regulation, and the conformity with the Aarhus Convention, others would, in my view, represent a step backwards for transparency, especially if we consider that most of the European Parliament's requests of 2006 have not been taken into account.
Poleg tega mora sedaj, ko Lizbonska pogodba velja, Komisija jasneje sporočiti državljanom, da je pripravljena zagotoviti preglednejše delovanje institucij, organov, uradov in agencij Evropske unije.
On top of this now, with the Lisbon Treaty in force, the Commission is called upon to show a clearer message to the citizens that it is ready to provide for a more transparent way in which the EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies operate.
Menim, da moramo tudi zakonodajalci izkoristiti to priložnost in iz uredbe narediti resnični in edini pravni okvir za dostop javnosti do vseh dokumentov, s katerimi razpolagajo institucije, organi, uradi in agencije, ter ob tem upoštevati, da so končni uporabniki državljani.
In my view, we the legislators must also take this opportunity to try to make this regulation the real and unique legal framework of public accessibility to all documents handled by institutions, offices, bodies and agencies bearing in mind that final users are the citizens.
Naša naloga in dolžnost je, da zagotovimo kolikor je mogoče preprost in uporabniku prijazen dostop.
It is our duty and obligation to make access as easy and user-friendly as possible.
Poleg tega je prav, da izkoristimo to priložnost in različne določbe uredimo bolj dosledno in razumno, da bodo institucije končno lahko skupaj opredelile skupna pravila in smernice za ravnanje z različnimi vrstami dokumentov.
Furthermore, we need to take this opportunity to try to order the different provisions in a more consistent and reasonable way so that institutions can finally work together to define common rules and guidelines to handle different kind of documents.
Ne začenjamo iz nič, ker obstajajo že številne pobude, utemeljene na mehkem pravu, ki poskušajo uresničiti isti cilj.
We do not start from scratches because there are a lot of initiatives which already exist, on a soft law basis, which try to reach the same objective.
Zagotoviti razumljivejši postopek odločanja na evropski ravni je cilj, v katerega so usmerjena tudi sredstva, kot so Uradni list, sistem Celex in različni medinstitucionalni sporazumi o kodifikaciji in pripravi zakonodaje.
Tools like the Official Journal, the Celex system or the several interinstitutional agreements on codification, legislative drafting are aiming the same objective to make the European decision-making process more understandable.
Ko govorim o postopku sprejemanja odločitev v EU, menim, da bi ga bilo treba razširiti na delegirane akte in na nacionalne izvedbene ukrepe, saj gre resnično za besedila, ki vplivajo na evropske državljane.
When I refer to EU decision-making process, I consider that it should be extended also to delegated acts and implementing measures as these are the real texts that affect European citizens.
Moj pristop je veliko bolj ambiciozen od predloga Komisije, verjetno pa tudi od pripravljenosti Sveta.
My approach will be much more ambitious than the Commission's proposal and probably of the Council's willingness.
Zaradi tega skušam zapolniti vrzel pri skupnih pravilih o „tajnih podatkih“ (tako imenovani občutljivi dokumenti, ki jih navaja sedanja Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001), in na raven uredbe povzdigniti nekaj dobrih načel iz notranjih varnostnih pravil Sveta in Komisije, če se seveda ta načela lahko uporabijo za parlamentarna telesa.
In this perspective, I try to complete the lack of common rules on "classified information" (the so-called sensitive documents cited in the current Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) by taking at Regulation level some good principles taken by the internal security rules of the Council and Commission as far as these principles can be also applicable to a parliamentary body.
Večje pristojnosti bi bilo treba dati tudi neodvisnim organom, denimo evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic in evropskemu nadzorniku za varstvo podatkov, ki bi lahko institucijam pomagali pri reformi njihovih notranjih postopkov.
We should also empower independent bodies such as the European Ombudsman and the EDPS to help the institutions in the accomplishment of the reform of their internal procedure.
Preglednost ni zgolj lastnost, ampak načelo, na katerem bi morali graditi vsi postopki v institucijah.
Transparency is not just an attribute but a principle to which all the institutions procedures should be designed upon.
Vpliv na dolžnost uradnikov glede priprave, evidentiranja, pogajanj, določanja stopnje tajnosti in arhiviranja dokumentov EU bi bilo treba uskladiti s sočasnim varovanjem učinkovitosti in preglednosti institucij EU.
The impact on the officials' duties to draft, register, negotiate, classify and archive EU documents should be aligned by protecting at the same time the efficiency and transparency of the EU institutions.
Kar najhitreje se moramo odzvati na vse pogostejše zahteve evropskih državljanov, pa tudi nacionalnih institucij in regionalnih organov, v prvi vrsti nacionalnih parlamentov.
We need to respond as soon as possible to increasing demands from the European citizens but also from national institutions and regional authorities, primarily the national parliaments.
Odločila sem se predlagati vrsto sprememb, ki bodo zadevale naslednje:
I have decided to put forward a series of amendments which will touch upon:
Ločevanje med upravičenci do dostopa in področjem uporabe.
· The separation of the beneficiaries from the scope of this regulation.
Vključila sem tudi nove opredelitve tajnih in zakonodajnih dokumentov, pa tudi o upravnih nalog, arhivskih sistemov in zgodovinskih arhivov.
· I have also inserted new definitions on classified and legislative documents, as well as administrative tasks, archive systems and historical archives.
Spremenila sem člen o izjemah, ker sem želel vzpostaviti razliko med varovanjem javnih in zasebnih interesov.
· I modify the article on the exceptions differentiating between protection of public and private interests.
Skušala sem tudi opredeliti ravnanje z dokumenti tretjih strani, ki so se pri delu institucij običajno izkazali kot problematični.
· I also attempt to specify the regime to use for documents of third parties that usually caused many problems in the institutions practices.
Spremenila sem še člen o dokumentih, ki morajo biti objavljeni v Uradnem listu EU.
· I also modify the article on documents to be published in the Official Journal of the EU.
Vnesla sem predlog spremembe o vlogi in odgovornosti uradnika za informiranje, v katerem predlagam okrepljeno vlogo evropskega varuha človekovih pravic kot referenčne točke, na katero bi se v primeru dvomov obrnili uradniki za informiranje v institucijah.
· I have inserted an amendment on the role and responsibility of the Information officer mentioned above by enhancing the role of the European Ombudsman as a point of reference for Information officers in the institutions who could be consulted in case of doubts.
Na koncu sem vnesla tudi predlog spremembe o sankcijah v primeru nespoštovanja določb te uredbe.
· Finally, I inserted an amendment on Sanctions encountered for failing to comply with this regulation.
Moj cilj je seveda spremeniti uredbo in s tem doseči večjo preglednost, ne da bi instrument postal preveč specifičen in težaven za izvajanje.
My goal is of course to modify this regulation in order to increase transparency without making this instrument too specific and difficult to implement.
Zato sem se posebej posvetila splošnim načelom, ki so še manjkala v sedanji uredbi v zvezi z zakonodajno in upravno dejavnostjo institucij.
Therefore, I worked on the general principles that were still missing in the current regulation with regards to legislative and administrative activities of the institutions.
Hkrati si želim, da se bo instrument uporabljal za boljšo prakso v institucijah in da se bodo te učile na preteklih izkušnjah, ki so bile osrednji vir navdiha pri mojem pisanju predlogov sprememb.
At the same time, it is my aspiration that this instrument will be used to improve the institutions practices by learning from the past experiences which have been my main source of inspiration when drafting my amendments.
v skladu s členom 52(3) Poslovnika
pursuant to Rule 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure
Roberta Angelilli, Simon Busuttil, Kinga Gál, Lívia Járóka, Véronique Mathieu, Georgios Papanikolau (Georgios Papanikolaou), Csaba Sógor, Renate Sommer, Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber, Elena Oana Antonescu, Petru Constantin Luhan, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Bogusław Sonik, Esther Herranz García
Roberta Angelilli, Simon Busuttil, Kinga Gál, Lívia Járóka, Véronique Mathieu, Georgios Papanikolaou, Csaba Sógor, Renate Sommer, Wim van de Camp, Axel Voss, Manfred Weber, Elena Oana Antonescu, Petru Constantin Luhan, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Bogusław Sonik, Esther Herranz García
Politična skupina PPE skladno s členom 52(3) Poslovnika zahteva, da se naslednje manjšinsko poročilo sprejme kot priloga k obrazložitvi k sprejetemu osnutku poročila o predlogu uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije
Pursuant to Rule 52(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the PPE Group requests that the following minority opinion be annexed to the explanatory statement accompanying the adopted draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents
Skupina PPE se je kot največja politična skupina v Evropskem parlamentu vedno izrekala za večjo preglednost zakonodaje in mehanizmov odločanja Evropske unije in torej tudi za širok dostop državljanov do njenih dokumentov.
As the largest political group in the European Parliament, the PPE Group has always argued in favour of greater transparency in EU legislation and EU decision-making mechanisms, and thus for extensive public access to EU documents.
S tem poročilom je bil ta cilj daleč presežen, saj so v njem obravnavane vsebine, ki ne morejo postati predmet tovrstne uredbe.
The present report goes far beyond this goal and raises issues that cannot be dealt with in a regulation of this kind.
Privolitev skupine PPE ni mogoča še zlasti zaradi naslednjih točk v poročilu:
The following points in the report in particular have made the PPE Group's agreement impossible:
· vsi podatki ali vsebine, ki so v kakršnikoli zvezi s politikami, ukrepi ali odločitvami EU, veljajo kot dokumenti, ne glede na njihovo obliko.
· documents are taken to mean any data or content, on whatever medium, connected in any way with the EU's policies, measures or decisions.
To vključuje tudi pripravljalne, zaupne in tajne dokumente, v zvezi s katerimi bi bilo treba čimbolj zmanjšati zaščito, pa tudi t.i. prostor za razmislek.
This also includes preparatory, confidential and secret documents in respect of which both protection and space to think are to be minimised;
· neomejen dostop do dokumentov in pripravljalnih zakonodajnih dokumentov, pa tudi do vseh z njimi povezanih informacij o različnih fazah medinstitucionalnega postopka bi pomenil dostop do postopkov, ki ga ni mogoče enačiti z dostopom do dokumentov, to pa bi občutno otežilo odločanje.
· unrestricted access to documents and preparatory legislative material, along with all related information on the various stages of the interinstitutional process, would open up a degree of access to procedures that cannot be placed on the same footing as access to documents and that would make it considerably more difficult to reach a decision.
Skupina PPE se izrecno zavzema za zasebnost, varstvo podatkov in poslovnih skrivnosti ter zaščito občutljivih informacij, povezanih s postopki na sodišču, natečaji in osebnimi mapami v okviru institucij EU.
The PPE Group is very clear in its support for privacy, data protection and the protection of trade secrets and sensitive information related to court cases, competition cases and personnel files held by the EU institutions.
Med pogajanji je skupina PPE vedno ravnala konstruktivno.
The PPE Group has acted constructively throughout the negotiations.
V interesu državljanov se je takoj zavzela za hitro uresničitev predloga Komisije (KOM(2011) 137), s čimer bi bile izpolnjene pravne zahteve Evropskega sodišča in Lizbonske pogodbe.
With the interests of citizens in mind, it immediately advocated that the second Commission proposal (COM(2011) 137) be implemented swiftly in order to comply with the legal requirements of the European Court of Justice and the Lisbon Treaty.
Sedanja uredba 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov EU je bila pomemben korak v smeri večje odprtosti v Uniji.
The present regulation 1049/2001 on public access to EU documents was a significant step towards greater openness within the Union.
V osmih letih, odkar se je začela izvajati, je prispevala k vzpostavljanju bolj pregledne upravne kulture v evropskih institucijah.
In the eight years since its implementation, it has contributed to the creation of a more transparent culture of administration within the European Institutions.
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 ".
Nova pogodba jasno razširja področje uporabe uredbe.
The new Treaty clearly enlarges the scope of the regulation.
Pred tem se je v pogodbi zahtevala le odprtost Parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, zdaj pa je v členu 15 Pogodbe EU navedeno, da imajo „[V]si državljani […] pravico dostopa do dokumentov institucij, organov, uradov in agencij Unije, ne glede na nosilec dokumenta“.
Previously, the Treaty demanded openness only from the Parliament, Council and Commission, and now Article 15/TFEU states that " Any citizen...shall have a right of access to documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium"
Parlament je od Komisije večkrat zahteval, naj predloži nov predlog za prenovitev uredbe 1049/2001 in pri tem upošteva spremembo njene pravne podlage, ki je nastopila z Lizbonsko pogodbo.
The Parliament has made several requests to the Commission to put forward a new proposal for the recasting of Regulation 1049/2001 taking into account the change to its legal basis brought about by the Lisbon Treaty.
V decembru je Parlament sprejel resolucijo, v kateri izjavlja, da je treba uredbo nujno posodobiti, in obžaluje dejstvo, da Komisija ni pripravila spremenjenega predloga.
Last December, the Parliament adopted a resolution whereby it stated that the Regulation should be urgently updated, and also deplored the fact that the Commission had not made a modified proposal.
Poleg tega je Sodišče od leta 2008 – ko je Komisija podala svoj predlog – razsojalo v nekaj zelo pomembnih zadevah, povezanih z dostopom do dokumentov.
Furthermore, since the Commission gave its proposal in 2008, the Court of Justice has made some very important decisions concerning access to documents.
Najpomembnejša med temi je bila zadeva Turco (T-84/03 Turco proti Svetu), v kateri je Sodišče razsodilo, da bi moral biti zagotovljen tudi dostop do mnenj pravnih služb.
The most significant of these is the Turco case (T-84/03 Turco v. Council), in which the Court decided that access to the opinions of legal services should also be made available.
Sodišče v svojem zaključku navaja, da „preglednost [...] daje institucijam večjo legitimnost v očeh evropskih državljanov in povečuje njihovo zaupanje“.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that: " openness...contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increases their confidence in them ".
Vseeno je Komisija zavrnila pripravo novega predloga.
However, the Commission has refused to make a new proposal.
Edina sprememba, ki jo je napravila Komisija, je pravzaprav sprememba pravne podlage uredbe, ki jo je opravila v decembrskem „omnibus“ sporočilu.
The only change that the Commission has in fact made is the modification of the legal base/basis of the regulation which was made in the Omnibus communication last December.
V takšnih razmerah se je pristojni odbor – Odbor za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve – odločil, da bi moral Parlament prevzeti vlogo Komisije in pripraviti potrebne predloge sprememb, ki bi uredbo prilagodili Lizbonski pogodbi.
In this situation, the leading Committee, the Committee on Civil Liberties, has decided that the Parliament should take over the Commission's role and make the necessary amendments that would "lisbonize" the regulation.
Sedaj smo prisiljeni nadaljevati na temelju predloga Komisije iz leta 2008.
We are now obliged to proceed on the basis of the Commission proposal from 2008.
Na žalost ta predlog ne dviguje preglednosti Unije na raven, ki se zahteva v novi pogodbi.
Unfortunately, this proposal does not enhance the transparency of the Union to the level that would be required by the new Treaty.