natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dokument bi lahko bil „dokument“ v smislu uredbe le, če bi bil uradno poslan ali drugače evidentiran.
A document would only be a "document" in the sense of the Regulation if it is formally transmitted or otherwise registered.
To bi bil korak nazaj pri doseganju preglednosti.
This would be a step backwards for transparency.
Z omogočanjem javnega dostopom do vmesnih dokumentov, kot so osnutki sporočil ali obvestil, bi se uradni tok informacij spremenil v neuradne in/ali medvladne stike, kar bi bilo kontraproduktivno, saj bi znižalo raven preglednosti in oslabilo Evropsko unijo.
Making intermediary documents, such as draft notes or memoranda publicly available could shift official information flow to informal and/or intergovernmental channels resulting in less transparency and a weaker European Union which would be counter-productive.
(b) „tretja stranka“ pomeni neko fizično ali pravno osebo ali subjekt zunaj institucije, vključno z državami članicami , drugimi institucijami in organi Skupnosti ali zunaj Skupnosti in tretjimi državami.
(b) "third party" means any natural or legal person, or any entity outside the institution concerned, including the Member States , other Community or non- Community institutions and bodies and third countries.
(b) „tretja stranka“ pomeni neko fizično ali pravno osebo ali subjekt zunaj institucije, druge institucije in organe Unije ali zunaj nje ter tretje države .
(b) "third party" means any natural or legal person, or any entity outside the institution concerned, other Union or non- Union institutions and bodies and third countries.
Države članice se v odnosih z institucijami ali v komunikaciji o zadevah, ki se nanašajo na področje delovanja Unije, ne bi smele obravnavati kot tretje stranke.
Member States should not be considered third parties in their relations with the institutions or their communications on matters relating to the field of activities of the Union.
(d) finančno, denarno ali gospodarsko politiko Evropske unije ali države članice;
(d) the financial, monetary or economic policy of the European Union or a Member State;
(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, razen kadar se zagotavljajo v zvezi s postopki za sprejem zakonodajnih aktov , in sodnih postopkov;
(c) legal advice , except when provided in connection with procedures for the adoption of legal acts, and court proceedings;
Predlog spremembe Komisije k členu 4 § 2(c) bi znižal standarde v primerjavi z veljavnimi pravili.
The Commission's amendment to Article 4 § 2(c) would lower standards compared to current rules.
Točka je spremenjena, da bi izboljšali standarde in upoštevali sodbo v zadevi Turco (C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P).
To improve standards and to take into account the Turco judgement (Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P) this point is amended.
(d) namena inšpekcij, preiskav in revizij;
(d) the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits;
(d) namena inšpekcij, preiskav, postopkov s področja konkurence in revizij;
(d) the purpose of inspections, investigations , competition proceedings and audits;
Razkritje dokumentov o postopkih v zvezi s konkurenco bo zavrnjeno, saj lahko ogrozi te postopke.
Disclosure of documents on competition proceedings shall be refused as it can undermine the protection of such proceedings.
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.
Imena, nazivi in funkcije nosilcev javne funkcije, javnih uslužbencev in zastopnikov interesnih skupin v zvezi z njihovimi poklicnimi dejavnostmi se razkrijejo, izključno s privolitvijo tistega, ki jih je ustvaril, razen če bi to v posebnih okoliščinah negativno vplivalo na zasebnost in integritete teh oseb .
Names, titles and functions of public office holders, civil servants and interest representatives in relation with their professional activities shall be disclosed solely with the consent of the originator, unless, given the particular circumstances, disclosure would adversely affect the privacy and integrity of the persons concerned.
Drugi osebni podatki se razkrijejo v skladu s pogoji o zakoniti obdelavi takih podatkov, določenimi v zakonodaji Unije 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 Union legislation on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
Nosilce javne funkcije, javne uslužbence in zastopnike interesnih skupin je treba zaprositi za dovoljenje za razkritje njihovih imen, nazivov in funkcije preden se vključijo v dokument.
Consent shall be requested from public office holders, civil servants and interest representatives prior to having their names, titles and functions included in a document.
Če institucija, organ, urad ali agencija zavrne dostop do dokumenta na podlagi odstavka 1, preuči, ali je mogoče dovoliti delni dostop do tega dokumenta.
Where an institution, body, office or agency refuses access to a document on the basis of paragraph 1, it shall consider whether partial access to that document is possibl e.
Besedilo mora biti skladno z nedavno razsodbo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti v primeru Bavarian Lager (C-28/08P).
Wording should be in line with the recent ruling of the ECJ in the Bavarian Lager case (C-28/08P).
Dostop do na novo pripravljenih dokumentov bi bilo treba v prihodnje olajšati.
Making future access to newly drafted documents should be made easier.
Institucija upošteva razloge, ki jih je navedla država članica , če temeljijo na izjemah iz te uredbe .
The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of reasons given by the Member State insofar as they are based on exceptions laid down in this Regulation .
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, ali na informacije o izvajanju zakonodaje Unije, posredovane Komisiji, dokler se ni v zvezi s tem pričel postopek pred sodiščem , 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, or information submitted to the Commission concerning the implementation of Union legislation, until such time as any court proceedings relating to it have begun, the authorities of that Member State shall be consulted.
Institucija, organ, urad ali agencija , ki ima dokument, ga razkrije, razen če država članica ne zagotovi razlogov za njegovo zadržanje na podlagi izjem iz člena 4.
The institution , body, office or agency 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 te razloge, ki jih je navedla država članica.
The institution shall appreciate the adequacy of such reasons given by the Member State.
Države članice lahko od institucij, organov, uradov ali agencij EU zahtevajo, da zavrnejo dostop do njihovih dokumentov le, kadar taka zahteva temelji na izjemah iz člena 4 (IFAW, zadeva C-64/05).
Member States may request EU institutions, bodies, offices or agencies to refuse access to their documents only if such a request is based on the exceptions laid down in Article 4 (IFAW case C-64/05).
Države članice ne morejo uporabiti veta v zvezi z dokumenti, ki so nastali pri njih, in nimajo pravice, da bi se pri zahtevah po zaupnosti sklicevale na določbe iz svoje zakonodaje.
Member States do not have a right of veto with respect to documents emanating from them, nor the right to refer to provisions in their own legislation in order to justify confidentiality.
Dostop bi bilo treba odobriti tudi do informacij držav članic, ki so bile posredovane Komisiji v zvezi z izvajanjem zakonodaje Unije, preden se začne postopek pred sodiščem (priporočilo št. 4 iz resolucije Cashman).
Access should also be granted to MS information submitted to the Commission concerning the implementation of EU law, until proceedings before a Court commence (recommendation 4 Cashman resolution ).
Institucija obvesti prosilca, ali bo delni ali popolni dostop do dokumenta verjetno mogoč kasneje in, če je temu tako, kdaj.
The institution shall notify the applicant whether, and if so when, partial or full access to the document is likely to be possible at a later point in time.
Dokumenti občutljive narave so dokumenti, ki izvirajo iz institucij ali njihovih agencij, iz držav članic, tretjih držav ali mednarodnih organizacij in so označeni s „TRÈS SECRET/TOP SECRET“, „SECRET“ ali „CONFIDENTIEL“ v skladu s predpisi institucije , ki ščitijo bistvene interese Evropske unije ali ene ali več njenih držav članic na področjih, zajetih v členu 4(1)(a) , zlasti javni varnosti, obrambi in vojaških zadevah .
Sensitive documents are documents originating from the institutions or the agencies established by them, from Member States, third countries or International Organisations, classified as «TRÈS SECRET/TOP SECRET», «SECRET» or «CONFIDENTIEL» in accordance with the rules of the institution concerned, which protect essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its Member States in the areas covered by Article 4(1)(a) , notably public security, defence and military matters.
Dokumenti občutljive narave so dokumenti, ki izvirajo iz institucij ali njihovih organov, uradov ali agencij, iz držav članic, tretjih držav ali mednarodnih organizacij in so označeni s „TRÈS SECRET/TOP SECRET“, „SECRET“ ali „CONFIDENTIEL“ v skladu s skupnimi predpisi institucij, organov, uradov in agencij , ki ščitijo bistvene interese Evropske unije ali ene ali več njenih držav članic na področjih, zajetih v točkah (a) in (b) člena 4(1) , zlasti javne varnosti , obrambe in vojaških zadev .
Sensitive documents are documents originating from the institutions or the bodies, offices or agencies established by them, from Member States, third countries or International Organisations, classified as «TRÈS SECRET/TOP SECRET», «SECRET» or «CONFIDENTIEL» in accordance with common rules laid down by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies which protect essential interests of the European Union or of one or more of its Member States in the areas covered by points (a) and (b) of Article 4(1) , notably public security, defence and military matters.
Predlog Komisije, naj se člena 9 ne spremeni, ni v skladu s spremembami, predlaganimi v členu 4, zaradi česar je sedanje sklicevanje v prvem odstavku tega člena protislovno in napačno.
The Commission's proposal not to amend Article 9 is not consistent with the changes proposed to Article 4, which at present makes the reference in paragraph 1 of this article incoherent and incorrect.
Po členu 15 PDEU so tudi pogoji in omejitve glede dostopa do dokumentov določeni s postopkom soodločanja.
According to Article 15 TFEU also the conditions and limits to access to documents shall be laid down in co-decision.
Zaradi tega je nujno in je v skladu s pravno podlago, da institucije, organi, uradi in agencije sprejmejo skupna pravila glede stopenj tajnosti dokumentov.
Therefore, it is imperative and in conformity with the legal base that the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies adopt common rules on classification.
Skupni predpisi institucij, organov, uradov in agencij o dokumentih občutljive narave se objavijo.
The common rules of the institutions , bodies, offices and agencies concerning sensitive documents shall be made public.
Zaradi tega je nujno in je v skladu s pravno podlago, da institucije, organi, uradi in agencije sprejmejo in javno objavijo skupna pravila glede stopenj tajnosti dokumentov.
Therefore, it is imperative and in conformity with the legal base that the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies adopt and make public common rules on classification.
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.
Institucije v največji možni meri omogočijo neposreden dostop javnosti do dokumentov v elektronski obliki ali prek registra v skladu s predpisi zadevne institucije, organa, urada ali agencije.
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, body, office or agency concerned .
Za ohranitev veljavnih standardov se obnovi besedilo člena 12(1).
In order to maintain current standards the text of the current Article 12(1) is reinstated.
Komisija najpozneje do .. .. … objavi poročilo o izvajanju načel te uredbe in pripravi priporočila, med njimi opredelitev pojma „prevladujoči javni interes“ in po potrebi predloge za revizijo te uredbe in akcijski program ukrepov, ki jih bodo sprejeli institucije, organi, uradi in agencije.
At the latest by .. .. ...., the Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of the principles underlying this Regulation and shall make recommendations, including, inter alia, a definition of the term “overriding public interest” and, if appropriate, proposals for revision of this Regulation and an action programme of measures to be taken by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.
Kot je določeno v sedanji uredbi, bi bilo treba predložiti poročilo o izvajanju uredbe, v katerem bi morali biti po potrebi navedena priporočila in predlogi za izboljšave.
As was the case with the current Regulation a report on the implementation of the Regulation should be presented in which recommendations and proposals for improvements, where needed, should be made.
Ágnes Hankiss,
Ágnes Hankiss
OPINION of the Committee on LEGAL AFFAIRS
OPINION of the Committee on LEGAL AFFAIRS
Chair, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Chair, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Subject: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM (2011) 137 final)
Subject: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM (2011) 137 final)
Dear Mr López Aguilar,
Dear Mr López Aguilar,
The Committee on Legal Affairs has been asked for an Opinion on the above proposal.
The Committee on Legal Affairs has been asked for an Opinion on the above proposal.
In order to be able to meet the timetable of the main committee, the present letter constitutes that Opinion.
In order to be able to meet the timetable of the main committee, the present letter constitutes that Opinion.
As a background, it should be recalled that the proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 ( COM(2008)0229 ) has been pending for several years (hereinafter, the "first proposal").
As a background, it should be recalled that the proposal for a recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 ( COM(2008)0229 ) has been pending for several years (hereinafter, the "first proposal").
In 2009 the plenary of the European Parliament adopted amendments but the vote on a legislative resolution was postponed as the matter was referred back to the responsible Committee.
In 2009 the plenary of the European Parliament adopted amendments but the vote on a legislative resolution was postponed as the matter was referred back to the responsible Committee.
Sprejeta besedila, P6_TA(2009)0114 .
Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2009)0114 .
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a new legal framework with regards to access to documents was set up.
With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, a new legal framework with regards to access to documents was set up.
Nevertheless, the Commission decided not to withdraw the proposal
Nevertheless, the Commission decided not to withdraw the proposal
Sporočilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu z naslovom Posledice začetka veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe za še nedokončane medinstitucionalne postopke odločanja ( KOM(2009)0665 ). ("first proposal") and not to present a revised proposal, which would fully take into account the requirements for greater transparency enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Commission Communication to Parliament and the Council entitled 'Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures' ( COM(2009)0665 ). ("first proposal") and not to present a revised proposal, which would fully take into account the requirements for greater transparency enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty and stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice.
In the meanwhile, the Hautala-Sargentini resolution dealing with the implementation of Regulation 1049/01 was adopted with an overwhelming majority in the September 2011 plenary session.
In the meanwhile, the Hautala-Sargentini resolution dealing with the implementation of Regulation 1049/01 was adopted with an overwhelming majority in the September 2011 plenary session.
The Hautala-Sargentini resolution reiterates that with the Lisbon Treaty, transparency has become a legally binding fundamental right of citizens and, "in the light of ten years of experience with the application of the Regulation and taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice”
The Hautala-Sargentini resolution reiterates that with the Lisbon Treaty, transparency has become a legally binding fundamental right of citizens and, "in the light of ten years of experience with the application of the Regulation and taking into account the case-law of the Court of Justice”
As for the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the General Court on access to documents, the report refers to the judgments of the Court in the cases of Turco (joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P), Bavarian Lager (case C-28/08) , Volker und Marcus Schecke (joined cases C-92/09 and C-93/09) , Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau - TGI (C-139/07 P) and API (joined cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P) , and to the judgments of the General Court in the cases of Access Info Europe (T-233/09), MyTravel (case T-403/05), Borax (cases T-121/05 and T-166/05), Joséphidès (case T-439/08), Co-Frutta (joined cases T-355/04 and T-446/04), Terezakis (case T-380/04), Agrofert Holdings (case T-111/07) and Editions Jacob (case T-237/05) , it is necessary to revise that regulation in order to clarify some of its provisions, narrow the scope of its exceptions and ensure that the transparency promised by the Treaties becomes a reality".
As for the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the General Court on access to documents, the report refers to the judgments of the Court in the cases of Turco (joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P), Bavarian Lager (case C-28/08), Volker und Marcus Schecke (joined cases C-92/09 and C-93/09), Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau - TGI (C-139/07 P) and API (joined cases C-514/07 P, C-528/07 P and C-532/07 P), and to the judgments of the General Court in the cases of Access Info Europe (T-233/09), MyTravel (case T-403/05), Borax (cases T-121/05 and T-166/05), Joséphidès (case T-439/08), Co-Frutta (joined cases T-355/04 and T-446/04), Terezakis (case T-380/04), Agrofert Holdings (case T-111/07) and Edition s Jacob (case T-237/05) , it is necessary to revise that regulation in order to clarify some of its provisions, narrow the scope of its exceptions and ensure that the transparency promised by the Treaties becomes a reality".
It calls therefore once more on the Commission "to present a revised proposal for a revision of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001".
It calls therefore once more on the Commission "to present a revised proposal for a revision of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001".
Despite those important steps towards greater transparency and despite several meetings and debates organised with the Council and the Commission
Despite those important steps towards greater transparency and despite several meetings and debates organised with the Council and the Commission
The last meeting organised by the LIBE Committee between the rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and draftspersons with Commission Vice President Šefčovič took place on 28 June 2011 , the only answer from the Commission was to introduce in March 2011 a new legislative proposal for a regulation amending Regulation 1049/2001
The last meeting organised by the LIBE Committee between the rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and draftspersons with Commission Vice President Šefčovič took place on 28 June 2011 , the only answer from the Commission was to introduce in March 2011 a new legislative proposal for a regulation amending Regulation 1049/2001
COM (2011)137 final, 2011/0073 (COD) (hereinafter the "second proposal", which is the object of this letter) and providing a minor update to the current Regulation extending the public right of access to documents of all the Union Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, in accordance with Article 15 TFEU.
COM (2011)137 final, 2011/0073 (COD) (hereinafter the "second proposal", which is the object of this letter) and providing a minor update to the current Regulation extending the public right of access to documents of all the Union Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, in accordance with Article 15 TFEU.
As the coexistence of two Commission proposals ("first proposal" and "second proposal") to amend the same legislative act has created an unclear legal situation, clarification was requested from the European Parliament Legal Service as to the "direct effect" of Article 15 TFEU and the possibility of considering the Commission proposal ("second proposal") as a sufficient amendment of Regulation 1049/2011 as regards the obligations contained in the Lisbon Treaty.
As the coexistence of two Commission proposals ("first proposal" and "second proposal") to amend the same legislative act has created an unclear legal situation, clarification was requested from the European Parliament Legal Service as to the "direct effect" of Article 15 TFEU and the possibility of considering the Commission proposal ("second proposal") as a sufficient amendment of Regulation 1049/2011 as regards the obligations contained in the Lisbon Treaty.
A clear answer was provided by the Legal Service (Opinion attached) confirming that Article 15(3) subparagraphs 3 and 4 "directly" provide that the Union's institutions, bodies' offices' and agencies must comply with the law provided for in regulations on access to documents.
A clear answer was provided by the Legal Service (Opinion attached) confirming that Article 15(3) subparagraphs 3 and 4 "directly" provide that the Union's institutions, bodies' offices' and agencies must comply with the law provided for in regulations on access to documents.
Furthermore, having regard to its content, the proposed amendment of Regulation 1049/2001 (the "second proposal") cannot be regarded as a sufficient amendment of regulation 1049/2001 to comply with the Union's new legal context, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.
Furthermore, having regard to its content, the proposed amendment of Regulation 1049/2001 (the "second proposal") cannot be regarded as a sufficient amendment of regulation 1049/2001 to comply with the Union's new legal context, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.