natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
v demokratičnih pravnih sistemih, kot to velja za Evropsko unijo (člen 6(1) Pogodbe EU) in njene države članice, je bistvena značilnost zakonodaje, da ni le zavezujoča, temveč se tudi sprejema na način, ki omogoča informiranje in sodelovanje evropskih državljanov preko svojih predstavnikov na nacionalni (parlamenti in nacionalne vlade) in na evropski ravni (Evropski parlament), da drugi odstavek člena 1 Pogodbe EU zavezuje institucije EU, da odločitve sprejemajo čim bolj javno in v kar najtesnejši povezavi z državljani, in da mora biti vsako odstopanje od tega načela utemeljeno s specifičnimi in tehtnimi razlogi;
under democratic legal systems such as those of the European Union (Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty) and its Member States, the essential characteristic of the law is not only that it is binding but also that it is adopted in such a manner as to allow the people of Europe to be informed and to participate through their representatives at both national (national parliaments and governments) and European (European Parliament) level; and that the second paragraph of Article 1 of the EU Treaty obliges the EU institutions to take an approach of openness and closeness to the citizen during their decision-making processes and that any deviation from this principle would have to be based on very specific and strong reasons;
takšna možnost sodelovanja državljanov bi bila bistveno omejena, če bi eden od zakonodajnih organov omogočili dostop do svojih pripravljalnih posvetovanj in razprav šele po sprejetje dokončne odločitve ali kasneje;
this possibility of public participation would be gravely undermined if one of the legislative authorities were required to make its preparatory deliberations and discussions accessible only when the final decision is taken or later;
ohranjanje različnih standardov glede preglednosti med Parlamentom in Svetom nima logične obrazložitve, zlasti ne pri postopku soodločanja;
continued disparities between Parliament and the Council as regards standards of transparency have no logical justification, particularly in codecision procedures;
če so pripravljalna posvetovanja v parlamentarnih odborih in plenarne razprave javni, bi morale biti razprave o istih zadevah na ministrski ravni tudi javne;
given that preparatory deliberations in parliamentary committees and debates in plenary sitting are public, debates at ministerial level on the same matters should also be public;
potreba po preglednosti je še bolj očitna, ko iščeta Parlament in Svet soglasje pri soodločanju med prvo obravnavo v Parlamentu (ki se zgodi v enem od treh primerov); v takšnih okoliščinah je stališče Parlamenta lahko razumljivo zgolj, če je hkrati znano stališče večine v Svetu, njegove sestave in argumentov, ki jih navajajo v podporo svojim stališčem nacionalne delegacije;
the need for transparency is all the more manifest when Parliament and the Council are seeking an agreement in codecision at first reading in Parliament (which happens in one out of every three cases); in such situations, the position of Parliament itself can only be understood if at the same time any majority view emerging in the Council, its composition and the arguments underlying the positions of the national delegations are known,
ohranjanje zaupnosti posvetovanj Sveta glede teh vrst pogajanj predstavlja spodkopavanje načela preglednosti in učinkovitosti, ki velja za postopke Parlamenta;
insistence on the confidentiality of Council deliberations in respect of negotiations of this nature is tantamount to undermining the principle of transparency and efficiency which governs Parliament's own procedures;
ta vidik ni upoštevan v zaključkih, ki jih je Svet sprejel 22. decembra 2005, ki zagotavljajo preglednost njegovih pripravljalnih posvetovanj samo v začetku postopka in po končnem glasovanju (če COREPER ne odloči drugače);
this aspect was not taken properly into account in the Conclusions adopted by the Council on 22 December 2005, which provide for the transparency of its preparatory deliberations only at the outset of proceedings and after the final vote (unless COREPER decides to the contrary);
opozarja, da se mora v smislu opredelitve zakonodajne dejavnosti iz člena 12 Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 in Poslovnika Sveta načelo preglednosti nujno uporabljati ne le pri soodločanju s Parlamentom, temveč tudi v vseh drugih primerih vključitve Parlamenta, vključno s posvetovanjem, in ko sprejema akte, ki lahko vplivajo na individualne pravice in svoboščine, kot to velja za primer aktov iz tretjega stebra;
Recalls that, given the definition of legislative activity contained in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and in the Council's Rules of Procedure, the principle of transparency should as a matter of urgency be made to apply not only to Council deliberations with Parliament under the codecision procedure but also to every other case where Parliament is involved, including straightforward consultation, and wherever it adopts acts which may affect individual rights and freedoms, as is the case with acts falling under the third pillar;
4 obžaluje, da na teh področjih ni napredka in da Svet tega vprašanja ne omenja v svojih zaključkih z dne 22. decembra 2005;
Regrets the absence of progress in these areas and the Council's own silence on the matter in its Conclusions of 22 December 2005;
se mu zdi nesprejemljivo, da se najpomembnejše zakonodajno telo EU, ko nastopa v vlogi zakonodajalca, še vedno sestaja brez navzočnosti javnosti;
Considers it unacceptable that the EU's most important law-making body still meets behind closed doors when acting as legislator;
poudarja, da načela upravljanja na več ravneh v EU pomenijo načela dobrega upravljanja: sodelovanje, preglednost, odgovornost, učinkovitost in kohezije;
Points out that the principles of multi-level governance in the EU are the principles of good governance: participation, transparency, accountability, efficiency and cohesion;
meni, da bi se moral Svet v obdobju, ko se EU vidi kot zagovornico demokratizacije in odgovornosti, odzvati na pozive parlamentov, civilne družbe in splošne javnosti za večjo preglednost;
Is of the opinion that, at a time when the EU sees itself as a promoter of democratisation and accountability, the Council should respond to the calls for greater transparency coming from parliaments, civil society and the general public;
je prepričan, da javno sestajanje zakonodajnih teles ni zgolj načelno vprašanje, temveč ima neposreden pomen za trud Evropskega parlamenta in nacionalnih parlamentov kot neposredno izvoljenih predstavnikov evropskih državljanov, da bi izpolnili svojo nadzorno vlogo nadzornika;
Believes that it is not only a matter of principle that legislative bodies should meet in public, but that it is also of direct relevance to the efforts of the European Parliament and national parliaments, as the directly elected representatives of European citizens, to fulfil their scrutiny role;
se mu zdi izjemno pomembno, da nacionalni parlamenti svoje vlade in ministre lahko pokličejo na odgovornost; meni, da tega ne morejo storiti učinkovito, če ni jasno, kako so ministri v Svetu ravnali, kako so glasovali in na podlagi katerih informacij so se odločali;
Considers that it is of the utmost importance for national parliaments to be able to hold their governments and ministers to account; is of the opinion that this cannot be done effectively if it is unclear how ministers have acted and voted in the Council and on what information their decisions were based;
meni, da so nedavni dogodki v povezavi z razpravo o ratifikaciji Pogodbe o Ustavi za Evropo jasno pokazali, da si evropski državljani želijo bolj odprt postopek odločanja v EU;
Believes that the recent developments in connection with the debate surrounding the ratification process of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe have illustrated clearly that European citizens want the European decision-making process to be more open;
meni, da bi bilo z javnimi sejami delo Sveta bolj pregledno in bi za evropske državljane pridobilo večji smisel, povečalo pa bi se tudi zaupanje javnosti v delovanje Evropske unije in njenih predstavnikov;
Believes that meeting in public would make the Council's work both more transparent and more relevant to European citizens and would increase the public's confidence in the way the European Union and its representatives work;
je prepričan, da bi večja odprtost vodila k večji kolektivni odgovornosti vlad držav članic, okrepila legitimnost sklepov Sveta v očeh javnosti ter spodbudila in poglobila javno razpravo o evropskih zadevah;
Is convinced that greater openness will lead to the ministers of Member State governments shouldering greater collective responsibility, and that it will enhance the legitimacy of the Council's decisions in the eyes of the public and also promote and intensify public discussion on European matters;
poziva Svet, naj spremeni svoj poslovnik in svoje metode dela, tako da bodo seje, na katerih nastopa v vlogi zakonodajalca, odprte in dostopne za javnost;
Calls on the Council further to amend its Rules of Procedure and change its working methods so that the meetings in which it acts in its legislative capacity are open and accessible to the public;
meni, da so seje odbora COREPER bistveni del zakonodajnih posvetovanj Sveta in da bi torej tudi zanje morali veljati predpisi o odprtosti za javnost; meni, da bi moral Svet svoje odločitve sprejemati z uradnim glasovanjem in jih ne zgolj odobriti;
Considers that meetings of COREPER are an essential part of the legislative deliberations of the Council and that, therefore, they should be covered by the rules on openness; considers that the Council should take its decisions by a formal vote and not only by approval;
želi spomniti, da Svet deluje v vlogi zakonodajalca tudi, ko sodeluje v spravnih postopkih;
Recalls that the Council is also acting in its legislative capacity when participating in conciliation procedures;
ugotavlja, da pripravljalni dokumenti za točke na sejah Sveta trenutno niso dostopni za javnost; poudarja, da bi Svet moral v svojem spremenjenem poslovniku jasno opredeliti razvrstitev in hierarhijo teh dokumentov in omogočiti dostop javnosti do njih;
Notes that, at present, preparatory documents for items on Council meeting agendas are not accessible to the public; stresses that, in any adapted Rules of Procedure, the Council should clearly specify the classification and hierarchy of such documents and make them accessible to the public;
kot korak v pravi smeri pozdravlja zaključke Sveta z dne 22. decembra 2005, vendar obžaluje, da Svet ni upošteval priporočila Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, naj spremeni svoj poslovnik;
Welcomes the Council Conclusions of 22 December 2005 as a step in the right direction, but regrets that the Council did not follow the Ombudsman's recommendation to amend its Rules of Procedure;
spominja, da mora spremembe Poslovnika Sveta podpreti trinajst izmed petindvajsetih držav članic;
Recalls that an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure requires the support of thirteen of the twenty-five Member States;
meni, ker so vse vlade držav članic podpisale Pogodbo o Ustavi za Evropo, da ne bi smelo biti nasprotovanj sporazumu o spremembi Poslovnika Sveta, saj so vlade vseh držav članic to načelo že politično sprejele;
Considers that, since all Member State governments have signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, agreement on an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure should not meet with opposition, as the principle has already been politically accepted by all Member State governments;
poudarja, da je Evropski parlament v celoti podprl Pogodbo o Ustavi za Evropo in ukrepe za njeno uveljavitev; poudarja, da sprememba Poslovnika Sveta ne bi smela veljati za nadomestilo celotne Pogodbe o Ustavi za Evropo ali nekaterih njenih delov, temveč gre za že dolgo časa potrebno prilagoditev evropski realnosti in institucionalni zakonodajni enakopravnosti v Evropski uniji;
Stresses that the European Parliament has fully endorsed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and the efforts to bring it into force; stresses that an amendment of the Council's Rules of Procedure should not be seen as a substitute for all or parts of the aforementioned Treaty but as a long overdue adaptation to European reality and institutional equality in law-making in the European Union;
meni, da načini prenosa sej Sveta, opisani v zaključkih z dne 22. decembra 2005, ne zagotavljajo zahtevane javnosti sej in da je nujno potrebno, da lahko predstavniki javnosti in medijev sejam dejansko prisostvujejo;
Takes the view that the methods of publicising Council meetings as described in its Conclusions of 22 December 2005 are insufficient to guarantee the necessary openness and that it is indispensable that representatives of the public and the media are in fact given access to the meetings;
poziva Svet k sprejetju ukrepov, potrebnih za odprtje in dostopnost za javnost tistih sej, na katerih nastopa v vlogi zakonodajalca; od Sveta zahteva tudi, da prenaša, tudi preko interneta, svoje javne seje in pravočasno objavi datume in dnevne rede teh sej ter da po njih objavi uradne dobesedne zapise v vseh uradnih jezikih Evropske unije;
Calls on the Council to take all measures needed to make the meetings in which it is acting in its legislative capacity open and accessible to the public; requests the Council also to broadcast, including on the Internet, its public meetings and to provide the dates and agendas of those meetings in good time and issue official transcripts thereof in all official languages of the European Union;
poziva Svet k sprejetju skupnega pristopa do izvajanja kodeksa dobrega upravnega ravnanja Evropske unije, ki ga je sprejel Evropski parlament dne 6. septembra 2001 UL C 72 E, 21.3.2002, str.
Urges the Council to adopt a common approach regarding the implementation of the European Union Code of Good Administrative Behaviour as adopted by the European Parliament on 6 September 2001 OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p.
Svetu predlaga sprožitev pilotnega projekta o "bolj preglednem odločanju", v okviru katerega bi se o eni ali več zakonodajnih temah razpravljalo na popolnoma odprtih in dostopnih sejah Sveta, s posebnim poudarkom na razlagi uporabljenih postopkov in sprejetih sklepov, tako da bi državljanom olajšali razumevanje;
Suggests to the Council the launch of a pilot project on "more transparent decision-making", wherein one or more topical legislative issues would be discussed in a fully open and accessible Council meeting, with special emphasis being laid on explaining the procedures followed and decisions made, so that they would be easier for citizens to understand;
poziva predsedstvo, člane Sveta in Komisije, da predlagajo vprašanja ali teme za odprto razpravo v skladu s členom 8(3) Poslovnika Sveta;
Calls on the Presidency, the members of the Council and the Commission to propose issues or subjects for such an open debate under Article 8(3) of the Council's Rules of Procedure;
poziva predsedstvo Sveta, da vprašanje odprtja sej Sveta za javnost uvrsti kot prednostno temo na dnevni red zasedanja Evropskega sveta ter se dne 9. maja 2006 slovesno zaveže za takojšnjo spremembo Poslovnika Sveta in da do konca leta 2006 v soglasju z Evropskim parlamentom preuči Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001;
Calls on the Presidency-in-Office of the Council as a matter of priority to put the issue of opening Council meetings to the public on the agenda of the European Council and to make a solemn commitment on 9 May 2006 to immediately amend the Council's Rules of Procedure and to review Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in agreement with the European Parliament, by the end of 2006;
poziva vse zainteresirane strani, da z največjimi možnimi pritiski skušajo prepričati Svet, naj upošteva priporočila Evropskega varuha človekovih pravic in prilagodi svoj poslovnik;
Calls on all interested parties to bring maximum pressure to bear on the Council in order to persuade it to follow the Ombudsman's recommendation and adapt its Rules of Procedure;
naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj to resolucijo posreduje Svetu, Komisiji, Evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic ter vladam in parlamentom držav članic.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Resolucija Evropskega parlamenta s priporočili Komisiji o dostopu do besedil institucij ( 2004/2125(INI) )
European Parliament resolution with recommendations to the Commission on access to the institutions' texts ( 2004/2125(INI) )
ob upoštevanju drugega odstavka člena 192 Pogodbe ES,
having regard to Article 192, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty,
ob upoštevanju poročil institucij o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije UL L 145, 31.5.2001, str.
having regard to the institutions' reports on the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p.
, predvsem prvega triletnega poročila Komisije o njenem izvajanju, kakor ga predvideva člen 17(2) te uredbe,
and, particularly, to the Commission's first triennial report on implementation, as provided for in Article 17(2) of that Regulation,
ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za državljanske svoboščine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve( A6-0052/2006 ),
having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs ( A6-0052/2006 ),
ker je od ratifikacije Amsterdamske pogodbe in začetka veljavnosti člena 255 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti preglednost postala temeljno načelo Evropske unije s cilji krepiti demokratičnost evropskih institucij, omogočiti državljanom večjo udeležbo v postopku oblikovanja političnih odločitev, zagotoviti, da upravni organi s povečanjem učinkovitosti in odgovornosti do državljanov uživajo večjo legitimnost, in ne nazadnje, pravočasno odkriti napake ali probleme,
whereas, since ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty and the entry into force of Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, transparency has become a fundamental principle of the European Union the aims of which are to strengthen the democratic nature of the European institutions, enable citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process, ensure that public administrative authorities enjoy greater legitimacy as a result of being more effective and more accountable to citizens and, finally, enable problems or errors to be detected in a more timely manner,
ker Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 samo delno vključuje člen 255 Pogodbe ES, saj:
whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 only partially implements Article 255 EC, in as much as:
je njena posredna definicija zakonodajne dejavnosti (opredeljena v členu 12) preveč splošna in bi lahko ustvarila zmedo pri dejavnostih upravne narave; tudi ne predvideva, da bi morala Parlament in Svet o zakonodaji razpravljati javno in jo javno sprejemati, ali da bi morali biti poleg novih zakonodajnih predlogov takoj dostopni tudi predlogi sprememb in pobude, ki jih zagovarjajo države članice; iz istega razloga bi morali biti vsi pripravljalni zakonodajni dokumenti dostopni (ne glede na to ali so jih pripravile pravne službe institucij Skupnosti ali ne), da se lahko odločitve sprejmejo na enakopravni podlagi in z lojalnim sodelovanjem med Parlamentom, Svetom in Komisijo, poleg tega še vedno ni skupnega razumevanja zahtev glede objave zakonodajnih besedil v Uradnem listu ali glede tega, kako naj bi bil urejen Uradni list (na primer, kar zadeva elektronsko različico),
its implicit definition of legislative activity (found in Article 12) is too general and could create confusion with activities of an administrative nature; it does not provide that legislation should be debated and adopted in public by the Parliament and the Council or that, in addition to legislative initiatives, amendments advocated by the Member States should also be immediately accessible - by the same token, all preparatory legislative documents should also be accessible (regardless of whether they are drawn up by the legal services of the Community institutions) so that decisions can be taken on an equal footing and in loyal cooperation between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission in full knowledge of the domain to be regulated; furthermore, there is still no common understanding of the requirements regarding publication of legislative texts in the Official Journal or the way in which the Official Journal should be organised (for instance, as far as the electronic version is concerned),
ni jasnih pravil o dostopu do dokumentov upravne narave, tako imenovanem "času za premislek", boljšem pripravljanju osnutkov, obveščanju državljanov o postopkih, ki veljajo za vsako od institucij, skupnih pravilih arhiviranja dokumentov in o privilegiranem dostopu oseb s posebnimi pravicami dostopa,
there are no clear rules on access to documents of an administrative nature, the so-called time for reflection, better drafting, informing citizens of the procedure to be followed by each institution, common rules for archiving documents or privileged access for persons with specific access rights,
ostaja nedvomna potreba po opredelitvi okoliščin, v katerih se določeni dokumenti lahko, v celoti ali delno, označijo za zaupne in določitvi pravil za redno pregledovanje take razvrstitve; nadalje je v nasprotju z demokratičnimi načeli, na katerih temelji Evropska unija, če Evropski parlament nima jasne pravne podlage za dostopanje do zaupnih EU informacij predvsem, ko je dostop prepovedan ali omejen tudi za nacionalne parlamente; nadalje bi bilo treba sprejeti določbe, s katerimi bi se tretjim državam in mednarodnim organizacijam preprečilo, da bi Svetu in Komisiji prepovedale posredovanje zaupnih informacij Parlamentu,
there remains a clear need to define the circumstances in which specific documents may be classified, wholly or in part, as confidential and to lay down rules requiring such classification to be reviewed regularly; furthermore, it is contrary to the democratic principle on which the Union is founded that the European Parliament does not have a clear legal basis for accessing classified EU information, notably where such access is also forbidden to or limited for national parliaments; moreover, provision must also be made to prevent third countries and international organisations from forbidding the Council and the Commission from allowing Parliament access to classified information,
upravni mehanizmi (registri, podatkovne baze in druge IT aplikacije institucij) so še vedno v poskusni fazi in tri institucije še nimajo skupnega pristopa; nadalje ni nikakršnega soglasja med institucijami niti o upravljanju, delitvi in shranjevanju različnih tipov dokumentov v medinstitucionalnih postopkih; čeprav je bilo nekaj izboljšav narejenih, še vedno obstaja pomanjkanje usklajenosti med institucijami, predvsem v zvezi z dokumenti, povezanih z medinstitucionalnimi postopki, kar predstavlja veliko zmedo ne samo med običajnimi državljani, ampak tudi strokovnjaki, raziskovalci ter nacionalnimi parlamenti,
the administrative machinery (the institutions' registers, databases and other IT applications) is still in an experimental phase and there is no common approach on the part of the three institutions; furthermore, even as regards inter-institutional procedures, there is still no common understanding among the institutions as to how to manage, share, and store the various types of documents; moreover, although some improvements have been made, there is still a clear lack of coordination between the institutions, notably in respect of documents connected with inter-institutional procedures, as a result of which not only ordinary citizens lose their way, but also professionals, researchers and national parliaments,