natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ker novi Pogodbi ne vključujeta več navedbe nujnosti ohranjanja učinkovitosti njegovih postopkov odločanja (člena 255 in 207(3) nekdanje PES), t. i. prostor za razmislek, kot možnosti za omejevanje preglednosti v zvezi z zakonodajnimi postopki; ker bi bilo treba za upravne postopke ta prostor za razmislek uokviriti v skladu s členom 1 PEU in členom 298 PDEU, ki zahtevata odprto, učinkovito in neodvisno upravo,
whereas the new Treaties no longer mention ‘the preserving of the effectiveness of the Council's decision-making process’ (Articles 255 and 207 (3) of the former TEC) – the so-called ‘space to think’ – as a possible limit to transparency as far as legislative procedures are concerned; whereas for administrative procedures the ‘space to think’ should be framed in line with Article 1 TEU and Article 298 TFEU, which require an open, efficient and independent administration,
ker je preglednost bistven del participativne demokracije, ki dopolnjuje predstavniško demokracijo, na katerih temelji delovanje Unije, kot je izrecno določeno v členih 9 do 11 PEU, saj se s tem državljanu omogoča sodelovanje pri odločanju ter izvajanje javnega nadzora in s tem zagotavljanje legitimnosti demokratičnega političnega sistema,
whereas transparency is an essential part of participatory democracy, being complementary to representative democracy, on which the functioning of the Union is based, as explicitly stated in Articles 9-11 TEU, allowing the citizen to participate in decision-making and to exercise public scrutiny, and thus ensuring the legitimacy of a democratic political system,
ker državljani zahtevajo več demokracije, preglednosti in odprtosti institucij in političnih akterjev ter okrepljen boj proti korupciji; ker je dostop do dokumentov in informacij eden od načinov vključevanja državljanov v demokratični proces ter preprečevanja korupcije in boja proti njej,
whereas citizens are calling for more democracy, transparency, openness of institutions and of political actors and a stronger fight against corruption; whereas access to documents and information is one of the ways to make sure citizens can be involved in the democratic process and that corruption is prevented and fought,
ker poleg tega EU vse pogosteje tvega, da postane tarča kritik, ker državljanom ne zagotavlja zadostne preglednosti, odprtosti ter dostopa do dokumentov in informacij, kot je razvidno iz dejstva, da ni bilo mogoče sprejeti nove uredbe o pravici do dostopa do dokumentov, ker Komisija ni sprejela sprememb, ki jih je predlagal Parlament, in države članice niso bili pripravljene razkriti svojih dokumentov, razprav in posvetovanj državljanom in Parlamentu,
whereas furthermore the EU progressively risks to become the target of criticism because of the continuous lack of transparency, openness and access to documents and information for citizens, as demonstrated by the impossibility to adopt a new Regulation on the right of access to documents, due to the Commission refusal to accept Parliament's amendments and Member States' unwillingness to open up their documents, discussions and deliberations to citizens and the Parliament,
ker bi bilo treba na ravni EU sprejeti nove in strožje ukrepe proti korupciji za zagotovitev, da se ne bi pojavljala v nobeni evropski instituciji, Parlament pa bi moral upoštevati nedavne negativne izkušnje in oblikovati pravila glede odnosov svojih poslancev in uslužbencev z lobisti in interesnimi skupinami, vključno z zahtevo po večji preglednosti,
whereas further and more stringent measures against corruption should be taken at EU level to ensure that EU institutions are immune from it, at all levels and everywhere, and whereas Parliament should learn from recent negative experiences by drawing up rules, including rules providing for enhanced transparency, on the relations of MEPs and Parliament's staff with lobbyists and interest groups,
ker imajo državljani zaradi zagotavljanja odgovornosti in legitimnosti demokratičnega političnega sistema pravico vedeti, kako delujejo njihovi predstavniki, izvoljeni ali imenovani v javne organe, oziroma kako zastopajo države članice na evropski ali mednarodni ravni (načelo odgovornosti), kako deluje postopek odločanja (vključno z dokumenti, predlogi sprememb, časovnimi razporedi, udeleženci, oddanimi glasovi itd.) ter kako in s kakšnimi rezultati se javni denar dodeljuje in porablja (načelo sledljivosti sredstev),
whereas, in order to guarantee the accountability and legitimacy of a democratic political system, citizens have a right to know how their representatives act, once elected or appointed to public bodies or representing the Member States at European or international level (principle of accountability), how the decision-making process works (including documents, amendments, timetable, players involved, votes cast, etc), and how public money is allocated and spent, and with what results (principle of traceability of funds),
ker trenutno veljavna Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 ne vsebuje jasnih opredelitev nekaterih pomembnih vprašanj, kot so pravica držav članic do veta, omejitve „prostora za razmislek“, jasna in omejena opredelitev izjem, dodeljevanje kategorij zaupnosti dokumentov ter ravnotežje med preglednostjo in varstvom podatkov,
whereas the current Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not provide clear definitions of several important issues, such as Member States' veto right, limitations of the ‘space to think’, clear and narrow definition of the exceptions, classification of documents, and equilibrium between transparency and data protection,
ker je EU z začetkom veljavnosti Lizbonske pogodbe dobila nove pristojnosti na področju kazenskega prava (člena 82 in 83 PDEU) in sodelovanja policijskih organov; ker bi lahko tovrstne nove pristojnosti vplivale na temeljne človekove pravice in poudarjajo potrebo po bolj odprtem zakonodajnem postopku,
whereas with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the EU acquired new competences in the fields of criminal law (Articles 82 and 83 TFEU) and police cooperation; whereas such new competences could affect basic human rights and highlight the need for a more open legislative procedure,
ker člen 15 PDEU in člen 42 Listine temeljnih pravic uvajata širok koncept dokumenta, ki zajema informacije ne glede na nosilec, na katerem so shranjene,
whereas Article 15 TFEU and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights introduce a broad notion of the term ‘document’ which covers information whatever its medium of storage,
ker izvajanje Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 ni enakomerno, saj statistike kažejo razlike med posameznimi institucijami; ker količinski podatki v poročilih za leto 2009 o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 v institucijah EU kažejo na splošno zmanjšanje števila in deleža zavrnitev, na 12 % 9 % leta 2010.
whereas the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is not uniform as statistics show a variation between different institutions; whereas quantitative data contained in the Annual Reports for 2009 in relation to the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by the EU institutions suggest a general decrease in the number and rate of refusals, to 12 % 9 % in 2010.
(16 % leta 2008) v Parlamentu (33 primerov), 22,5 % 36,1 % brez delno razkritih dokumentov.
(16 % in 2008) in Parliament (33 cases), 22.5 % 36.1 % without the partially disclosed documents.
(28 % leta 2008) v Svetu (2254 primerov) in 11,65 % (13,99 % leta 2008) v Komisiji (589 primerov), institucije EU pa so v letu 2009 za zavrnitev navajale različne razloge, od katerih je bil eden najpogosteje navedenih zaščita postopka odločanja (Parlament (39,47 % 37 % leta 2010.
(28 % in 2008) in the Council (2254 cases) and 11.65 % (13.99 % in 2008) in the Commission (589 cases), while reasons for refusal varied among EU institutions in 2009, one of the most used exceptions being the protection of the decision-making process (Parliament (39.47 % 37 % in 2010.
), Svet (39,2 % za začetne prošnje) 33 % leta 2010 za začetne prošnje.
), Council (39.2 % for initial applications) 33 % in 2010 for initial applications.
in Komisija (26 %)) Drugi pogosti razlogi v letu 2009 so bili: za Evropski parlament varstvo zasebnosti (26 %) in zaščita namena pregledov, preiskav in revizij (15 %), za Svet (začetne prošnje) varstvo javnega interesa, kar zadeva mednarodne odnose (22,7 %), javno varnost (5,6 %) ter obrambne in vojaške zadeve (3,5 %), za Komisijo pa zaščita pregledov (27,6 %) in poslovnih interesov (13,99 %).
, and Commission (26 %)) Other main reasons in 2009 were: for the European Parliament the protection of privacy (26 %) and protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (15 %), for the Council (initial applications) the protection of public interests as regards international relations (22.7 %), public security (5.6 %), and defence and military matters (3,5 %), and for the Commission (initial applications) the protection of inspections (27.6 %) and of commercial interests (13,99 %).
ker je Splošno sodišče v zadevi
whereas the General Court in the case
Toland proti Parlamentu
Toland v Parliament
Sodba z dne 7. junija 2011 v zadevi T-471/08,
Judgment of 7 June 2011 in case T-471/08,
preklical odločitev Evropskega parlamenta o zavrnitvi dostopa do poročila službe za notranjo revizijo z dne 9. januarja 2008 o reviziji nadomestila za parlamentarno pomoč,
annulled the decision of the European Parliament refusing access to an Internal Audit Service report of 9 January 2008 entitled ‘Audit of the Parliamentary Assistance Allowance’,
ker Komisija in Parlament v letu 2009 v svoja registra nista vnesla nobenega takšnega dokumenta, Svet pa je od 445 dokumentov, označenih za občutljive, v svoj register vnesel 157 dokumentov z oznako „CONFIDENTIEL UE“ ali „SECRET UE“,
whereas, as regards sensitive documents, in 2009 the Commission and Parliament did not enter any such documents in their registers, while the Council entered 157 sensitive documents classified ‘CONFIDENTIEL UE’ or ‘SECRET UE’ out of 445 documents classified in that way,
ker imajo mednarodni sporazumi v pravnem redu EU podobne pravne učinke kot notranja zakonodaja EU, javnost pa mora biti o teh sporazumih obveščena in imeti mora dostop do dokumentov v zvezi z njimi,
whereas international agreements have legal effects in the EU legal order similar to those of EU internal legislation, and whereas the public should be informed of the international agreements and be granted access to documents relating to them,
ker Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 zavezuje institucije, da predvidijo delni dostop do dokumenta, če samo za nekatere njegove dele velja izjema; ker je odobreni delni dostop pogosto neupravičeno omejen samo na naslov ali uvodne odstavke dokumentov, dostop do vsebinskih odstavkov pa je onemogočen,
whereas Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 establishes an obligation for the institutions to consider partial access to a document if only some parts of it are covered by an exception; whereas the partial access granted is often unduly limited and only extends to the title or the introductory paragraphs of the documents, while access to the substantive paragraphs is denied,
ker člen 41 listine o temeljnih pravicah opredeljuje „pravico vsake osebe do vpogleda v svoj spis ob spoštovanju legitimnih interesov zaupnosti ter poklicne in poslovne tajnosti“; ker je uveljavljanje te pravice še vedno močno pomanjkljivo, zaradi česar se je treba za pridobitev vpogleda v lasten spis nujno sklicevati na predpise o javnem dostopu,
whereas Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes ‘the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy’; and whereas serious gaps in the implementation of this right persist, which creates pressure to invoke rules of public access to gain access to one's own file,
ker člen 15 PDEU jasno določa obveznost institucij, organov, uradov in agencij Unije, da „pri svojem delu kar najbolj upoštevajo načelo javnosti delovanja“; ker ta obveznost velja tudi za odbore, ki pomagajo Komisiji pri njenih nalogah; ker se ta obveznost ne upošteva v standardnem poslovniku Komisije za odbore, ki določa, da so vse razprave in dokumenti v zvezi s postopki komitologije zaupni;
whereas Article 15 TFEU establishes a clear obligation for all Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to ‘conduct their work as openly as possible’; whereas this obligation also applies to the committees assisting the Commission in its duties; whereas this obligation is not respected in the Commission's standard rules of procedure for committees, which stipulate that all committee discussions and documents relating to ‘comitology’ procedures are to be confidential;
opozarja, da je preglednost splošno načelo, z Lizbonsko pogodbo (torej tudi s pridobitvijo pravno zavezujoče veljavnosti Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah) pa je postala pravno zavezujoča temeljna pravica državljana, tako da morajo vse odločbe za zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov temeljiti na jasno in strogo opredeljenih ter razumno obrazloženih in dobro argumentiranih izjemah, da bi državljan razumel zavrnitev in učinkovito uporabil pravna sredstva, ki jih ima na voljo;
Recalls that transparency is the general rule and that with the Lisbon Treaty (and accordingly, with the acquisition of binding legal force for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) it became a legally binding fundamental right of the citizen, so that any decisions denying access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined exceptions founded on sound arguments and reasonably explained , allowing citizens to understand the denial and to use the legal remedies available to them effectively;
meni, da bi morala biti EU v ospredju in vzor za države članice in za tretje države glede institucionalne preglednosti in moderne demokracije;
Considers that the EU should stand at the forefront, providing a model of institutional transparency and modern democracy for the Member States as well as for third countries;
opozarja, da je preglednost najboljši način preprečevanja korupcije, goljufij, navzkrižij interesov in slabega upravljanja;
Recalls that transparency is the best way to prevent corruption, fraud, conflicts of interest and mismanagement;
poziva institucije, organe, urade in agencije EU, vključno z novoustanovljeno evropsko službo za zunanje delovanje, naj začnejo nemudoma in v celoti izvajati Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001, kot določajo Pogodbe, in s tem v zvezi vsako leto objavijo poročilo, kot določa člen 17 navedene uredbe;
Calls on all the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, including the newly created European External Action Service, to immediately and fully apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as required by the Treaties, and to publish in that regard an annual report as required by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;
poudarja, da posredovanje Sodišča, evropskega varuha človekovih pravic in evropskega nadzornika za varstvo podatkov, ki se v bistvu izrekajo o posameznih primerih, ne more nadomestiti zakonodajne dejavnosti, kar zadeva pravno varnost in enakost pred zakonom; obžaluje, da se tudi v primerih, ko je Sodišče postavi jasna načela, recimo glede zakonodajne preglednosti v zadevi
Points out that interventions by the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), which basically take positions on individual cases, cannot replace legislative activity in terms of legal certainty and equality before the law; regrets that even when the Court of Justice has established a clear principle, as for example in the
, ta načela ne upoštevajo; zato ponovno poziva institucije, naj spoštujejo sodbo v zadevi
case on legislative transparency, it is still not complied with; consequently repeats its call to institutions to abide by the
o mnenjih pravnih služb, podanih v okviru zakonodajnega postopka; ponovno potrjuje, da mora zakonodajalec obravnavati in odpraviti težave, na katere v svoji sodni praksi opozori Sodišče, ter v celoti in obširneje izvajati pravico dostopa do dokumentov v duhu novih sprememb Pogodb, ki jasno določajo temeljno pravico do dostopa do dokumentov;
judgment on legal service opinions drafted in the framework of the legislative process; reaffirms that the legislator must address and overcome the problems highlighted by the Court of Justice jurisprudence and implement the right to access to documents fully and more extensively, in the spirit of the new Treaty modifications which clearly establish a fundamental right of access to documents;
meni, da je treba revidirati Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001, da bi razjasnili nekatere določbe v njej, natančno opredelili in omejili izjeme ter zagotovili, da te izjeme ne bodo spodkopavale preglednosti, ki jo zagotavljajo Pogodbe in Listina temeljnih pravic; meni, da bi morala ta revizija okrepiti pravico dostopa do dokumentov, ne da bi zniževala sedanje standarde, ki varujejo to pravico, pri tem pa bi bilo treba upoštevati sodno prakso Sodišča; v zvezi s tem poudarja, da bi morala biti spremenjena uredba preprosta in dostopna državljanom, da bi lahko učinkovito uveljavljali svojo pravico;
Considers it necessary to revise Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in order to clarify some of its provisions, precisely define and narrow its exceptions and ensure that these exceptions do not undermine the transparency granted by the Treaties and the Charter; sees that this revision should strengthen the right of access to documents, without in any way reducing the existing standards for the protection of that right, and take into consideration the case-law of the Court of Justice; stresses in this context that the revised Regulation should be simple and accessible to citizens, to enable them to effectively use their right;
meni, da predlog Komisije iz leta 2008 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 ne dviguje preglednosti Unije na raven, ki je zahtevana v Lizbonski pogodbi, pač pa da številne spremembe, ki jih Komisija predlaga, dejansko celo znižujejo sedanjo raven preglednosti; meni, da je zlasti sprememba, ki jo je Komisija predlagala za člen 3 in v primerjavi z obstoječim stanjem bistveno omejuje opredelitev izraza „dokument“, v nasprotju z Lizbonsko pogodbo; poziva Komisijo, naj predloži spremenjen predlog za revizijo Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, ki bi v celoti upošteval zahteve po večji preglednosti, zapisane v Lizbonski pogodbi ter določene v sodni praksi Sodišča in dosedanjem delu Parlamenta;
Considers that the Commission's proposal of 2008 for amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 does not improve the Union's transparency to the level required by the Lisbon Treaty but, on the contrary, that many of the amendments proposed by the Commission actually reduce the existing level; in particular, considers that the amendment which the Commission proposed to Article 3, which substantially restricts the definition of ‘document’ in comparison with the status quo, is contrary to the Lisbon Treaty; calls on the Commission to present a revised proposal for a revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 which would take full account of the requirements for greater transparency enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, stated in the case-law of the Court of Justice and expressed in the previous work of Parliament;
poudarja, da je Sodišče v zadevi
Recalls that the Court of Justice clarified in the case
Švedska proti Komisiji
Sweden v Commission
(zadeva C-64/05 P) Sodba z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi C-64/05 P,
(case C-64/05 P) Judgment of 18 December 2007 in case C-64/05 P,
določilo, da države članice nimajo absolutne pravice veta glede svojih dokumentov, pač pa le možnost postopka posvetovanja, s katerim potrdijo, ali glede pravice do dostopa do dokumentov, opredeljenih v Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001, velja katera od izjem
that Member States do not have an absolute veto right regarding documents originating from them, but only the possibility of a consultation procedure, the purpose of which is to assess whether or not an exception to access to documents set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable
; meni, da je potrebno zakonsko pojasnilo, s katerim bi zagotovili pravilno izvajanje te sodne prakse za preprečitev zamud in navzkrižij, ki so se pokazali v zadevi
; considers that a legislative clarification is needed in order to ensure the correct application of this case-law so as to avoid the persisting delays and controversies, as shown by the
Sodba z dne 13. januarja 2011 v zadevi T-362/08,
case Judgment of 13 January 2011 in case T-362/08,
IFAW proti Komisiji
IFAW v Commission
opozarja, da je člen 9 Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 o občutljivih dokumentih kompromis, ki po sprejetju Lizbonske pogodbe ne ustreza več novim ustavnim in pravnim obveznostim;
Recalls that Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on sensitive documents is a compromise that does not reflect any more the new constitutional and legal obligations after the Lisbon Treaty;
poudarja, da kategorije zaupnosti dokumentov neposredno vplivajo na pravico državljanov do dostopa do dokumentov; opozarja, da sedanji sistem kategorij zaupnosti deluje le na podlagi medinstitucionalnih sporazumov in je nagnjen k pripisovanju prevelike stopnje zaupnosti; poziva k uvedbi skupnih pravil za določanje zaupnosti v obliki uredbe;
Stresses that classification of documents directly affects the citizen's right of access to documents; recalls that the current system of classification functions only on the basis of interinstitutional agreements and is prone to over-classification; calls for common rules of classification in the form of a regulation;
poziva zlasti Svet, naj Parlamentu odobri poln dostop do zaupnih dokumentov v zvezi z mednarodnimi sporazumi, kot določa člen 218 PDEU, ter do zaupnih dokumentov v zvezi s postopki ocenjevanja EU, da bi se izognili medinstitucionalnim težavam, kakršne so se na primer pojavile pri pristopu EU k Evropski konvenciji o človekovih pravicah, pri ocenjevanju Bolgarije in Romunije pred vstopom v schengensko območje, pri sporazumu trgovinskega sporazuma o preprečevanju ponarejanja (ACTA) in pri dialogu med EU in Kitajsko o človekovih pravicah;
Calls especially on the Council to grant Parliament full access to classified documents connected with international agreements, as provided for by Article 218 TFEU, as well as classified documents connected with EU evaluation procedures, to avoid interinstitutional problems such as were encountered, for example, in connection with the EU's accession to the ECHR, the Schengen evaluation on Bulgaria and Romania, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the EU-China human rights dialogue;
poudarja pomembno vlogo, ki bi jo imela ustrezna pravila za razvrščanje po zaupnosti za iskreno medinstitucionalno sodelovanje; v zvezi s tem pozdravlja medinstitucionalne sporazume o kategorijah zaupnosti in dostopu do dokumentov, čeprav ne morejo nadomestiti ustrezne zakonske osnove; s tem v zvezi poziva Svet in Evropsko službo za zunanje delovanje, naj sledita modelu novega medinstitucionalnega sporazuma med Parlamentom in Komisijo ter nujno skleneta podoben sporazum s Parlamentom;
Stresses the important role of proper classification rules for sincere interinstitutional cooperation; welcomes in that regard interinstitutional agreements on classification and access to documents, although they cannot replace a proper legislative basis; calls in this context on the Council and the European External Action Service to follow the model of the new IIA between Parliament and the Commission and to conclude a similar agreement with Parliament as a matter of urgency;
poziva institucije EU, naj si prizadevajo za preglednejša pravila EU o dostopu do informacij, pri katerih bodo v celoti upoštevani predlogi iz tega poročila, novejša sodna praksa in novi Pogodbi;
Calls on the EU institutions to work towards more transparent EU rules on freedom of information which take full account of the proposals in this report, recent case-law and the new Treaties;
opozarja, da je Sodišče EU v sodbi v združeni zadevi
Recalls that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined cases
Švedska in Turco proti Svetu
Sweden and Turco v Council