natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
poudarja, da se to jasno načelo v praksi še ne izvaja, kot se je pokazalo pri nedavni sodbi v zadevi
Emphasises that, regardless of this clear principle, this is still not implemented in practice, as shown by the recent judgment in the
o zavrnitvi Sveta, da bi razkril stališča držav članic o predlagani prenovitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, ter v zadevi
case regarding the refusal by the Council to disclose positions of Member States on the proposed recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and by the case
ClientEarth proti Svetu
ClientEarth v Council
o pravnem mnenju glede prenovitve Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, ki je v obravnavi na Splošnem sodišču; ugotavlja, da javno razkritje stališč držav članic med pogajanji o Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001 in številnih nadaljnjih sprejetih ukrepih nikakor ni ogrozilo zmožnosti odločanja Sveta, saj ta razkritja niso onemogočila uspešnega zaključka zadevnih zakonodajnih postopkov;
, pending before the General Court, on a legal opinion regarding the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; notes that the public disclosure of Member States’ positions during the negotiation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and many subsequent adopted measures did not in any way undermine the decision-making capacity of the Council, since these disclosures did not prevent the successful conclusion of the relevant legislative procedures;
poziva Svet, naj pregleda svoj poslovnik ter v svojih delovnih skupinah in notranjih organih poveča preglednost v zvezi z zakonodajnimi postopki – vsaj z zagotovitvijo časovnih razporedov, dnevnih redov, zapisnikov razprav, obravnavanih dokumentov, predlogov sprememb, odobrenih dokumentov in sklepov, podatkov o delegacijah držav članic in seznamov članov –, ne glede na možnost izjem pri objavljanju tovrstnih seznamov, navedenih v členu 4(1) Uredbe (ES) 1049/2001; poziva Svet, naj bodo sklepi teh organov dostopni javnosti; nasprotuje uporabi „delno dostopnih dokumentov“ (izraz ne izhaja iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001), pa tudi uporabi tako imenovanih neregistriranih dokumentov, na primer delovnih dokumentov;
Calls on the Council to review its rules and increase transparency as regards legislative procedures of the working groups and internal Council bodies by providing at least the calendars, agendas, minutes of the discussions, documents examined, amendments, the documents and decisions approved, the identity of the Member States' delegations and lists of members, without prejudice to the possibility of the use of exemptions listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as regard the publication of such lists; calls on the Council to make the decisions of such bodies accessible to the public; opposes the use of ‘limited’ documents (a term not deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) as well as the practice of unregistered documents, such as room documents;
meni, da bi moral biti zakonodajni postopek bolj pregleden, razumljiv in dostopen javnosti, parlamentarni odbori pa bi morali pred začetkom trialogov s Svetom vedno opraviti orientacijsko glasovanje; po drugi strani bi moral Svet pred začetkom trialogov s Parlamentom sprejeti „splošne pristope“ ali odobriti pogajalska izhodišča, o katerih je bilo doseženo soglasje v Coreperju, ti dokumenti Parlamenta in Sveta pa bi morali biti takoj objavljeni;
Believes that, in order to make the legislative process more accountable, comprehensible and accessible to the public, Parliament's committees should in all cases adopt, at least, orientation votes prior to entering into trialogues with the Council; the Council, for its part, should adopt ‘general approaches’ or approve negotiating positions agreed in Coreper prior to entering into trialogues with the Parliament, with all such Parliament and Council documents immediately made public;
poziva Komisijo, naj da javnosti na voljo dnevne rede, zapisnike in izjave o interesu strokovnih skupin, pa tudi imena članov, zapisnike in glasovanja komitoloških odborov ter vse dokumente, ki so jih te skupine in odbori obravnavali, vključno z osnutki delegiranih in izvedbenih aktov; poziva Parlament, naj sprejme preglednejše in bolj odprte postopke za obravnavanje teh dokumentov, tudi pri notranjem delu;
Calls on the Commission to make publicly available agendas, minutes and declarations of interest relating to expert groups, and names of members, proceedings and votes of the ‘comitology’ committees, as well as all of the documents considered by such groups and committees, including draft delegated acts and draft implementing acts; calls on the Parliament to adopt a more transparent and open procedure, including internally, to deal with these documents;
opozarja, da preglednost, ki jo zahtevata Pogodbi, ni omejena na zakonodajne postopke, temveč zajema tudi nezakonodajne dejavnosti institucij, organov, uradov in agencij EU; poudarja, da je Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 edina prava pravna podlaga za presojanje pravice dostopa do dokumentov, in da drugi pravni akti, na primer notranje ali ustanovitvene uredbe institucij, agencij in organov, ne morejo uvajati dodatnih razlogov za zavrnitev dostopa;
Recalls that transparency as required by the Treaties is not limited to legislative procedures but also covers the non-legislative work of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies; stresses that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is the only proper legal basis for assessing the right of access to documents, and that other legal acts, such as internal or founding regulations of institutions, agencies and bodies, cannot introduce additional grounds for refusing access;
obžaluje, da nedavna pogajanja med institucijami EU o skupnem dogovoru o delegiranih aktih in o okvirnem sporazumu med Komisijo in Parlamentom niso bila v celoti pregledna; se zavezuje, da bodo potekajoča ali prihodnja pogajanja s Svetom in Komisijo o medinstitucionalnih in podobnih sporazumih povsem pregledna;
Regrets that recent negotiations between the EU institutions for a ‘common understanding’ on delegated acts and for a new framework agreement between the Commission and the Parliament have not been fully transparent; commits itself to making fully transparent its negotiations with the Council and Commission on ongoing or future interinstitutional agreements or comparable agreements;
želi ponovno pohvaliti prizadevanja evropskega varuha človekovih pravic, da bi zagotovil večjo preglednost v EU, saj se v približno tretjini svojih preiskav ukvarja ravno s tem, kot je omenjeno v poročilu za leto 2009, in poudarja njegovo vlogo na primer pri vplivanju na spremembo politike preglednosti v Evropski agenciji za zdravila v zvezi z razkritjem poročil o neželenih učinkih Pritožba št. 2493/2008/(BB)TS.
Praises again the work of the European Ombudsman to ensure greater transparency in the EU, as about one third of his inquiries deal with lack of transparency, as mentioned in his 2009 report, and highlights his role in influencing, for example, the change in transparency policy of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding the disclosure of adverse reaction reports Complaint 2493/2008/(BB)TS.
in poročil o kliničnih študijah Pritožba št. 2560/2007/BEH.
and clinical study reports Complaint 2560/2007/BEH.
; poudarja, da bi morali biti podatki, ki jih pripravijo organi in organizacije EU, na splošno dostopni javnosti;
; stresses that data produced by the EU entities should be in general available to the public;
, ter naj v celoti spoštuje Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001 v zvezi z njegovimi upravnimi dejavnostmi;
, and fully to respect Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as regards its administrative activities;
ponovno poudarja pomen načela sledljivosti, ki državljanom omogoča, da vedo, kako in s kakšnimi rezultati se javni denar dodeljuje in porablja, ter poziva institucije EU, naj na vseh ravneh uporabljajo to načelo pri vodenju institucij in politik ter pri sredstvih, dodeljenih njihovemu izvajanju;
Reiterates the importance of the principle of traceability, so to ensure that citizens can know how public money is allocated and spent, and with what results, and calls on the EU institutions to apply this principle in relation to the running of the institution and to policies and the funds allocated to implement them, at all levels;
Prostor za razmislek
'Space to think‘
opozarja, da novi Pogodbi ne vključujeta več posebne navedbe obveznosti Sveta, da določa zadeve, v katerih odloča kot zakonodajni organ, ter navedbe nujnosti ohranjanja učinkovitosti njegovih postopkov odločanja (člen 207(3) nekdanje PES), t. i. prostor za razmislek, ter da sedanje „preživetje“ tega pojma temelji zgolj na členu 4(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001, kar zadeva zakonodajne postopke;
Recalls that the new Treaties no longer make specific reference to the Council's obligation to define the cases in which it acts in a legislative capacity and to the need to preserve the effectiveness of its decision-making process (Article 207(3) of the former TEC) – the so-called ‘space to think’ – and that the current ‘survival’ of this concept is based only on Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 as far as legislative procedures are concerned;
v skladu z najboljšimi mednarodnimi standardi, ki so jih razvile nevladne organizacije ARTICLE 19, „The Public's Right to Know: Principles of Freedom of Information Legislation“ (Pravica javnosti, da ve: načela svobode v zakonodaji o dostopu do informacij), London, 1999; Transparency International, „Using the Right to information as an Anti-Corruption Tool“ (Uveljavljanje pravice do obveščenosti kot orodje za boj proti korupcji), Berlin, 2006.
In accordance with the best international standards developed by major non-governmental organisations Article 19, ‘The Public's Right to Know: Principles of Freedom of Information Legislation’, London, 1999; Transparency International, ‘Using the Right to information as an Anti-Corruption Tool’, Berlin, 2006.
, poudarja potrebo po strogem tridelnem preskusu za uporabo pri upravičevanju zavrnitve razkritja dokumenta: (1) informacije, ki jih dokument vsebuje, se morajo navezovati na zakonit cilj, naveden v zakonodajnem aktu, (2) razkritje dokumenta mora znatno škodovati temu cilju in (3) škoda v zvezi s ciljem mora biti večja od javnega interesa po pridobitvi informacij, ki jih dokument vsebuje;
, highlights the need for a strict three-part test to be used in order to justify a refusal to disclose a document: (1) the information contained in the document must relate to a legitimate aim listed in the legislative act, (2) the disclosure of the document must threaten substantial harm to that aim, and (3) the harm to the aim must be greater than the public interest in having the information contained in the document;
opozarja, da Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 jasno zavezuje institucije k zagotavljanju dostopa do vseh tistih delov dokumentov, za katere ne velja nobena izjema; ugotavlja, da je zagotovljen delni dostop pogosto neupravičeno omejen, in poudarja, da bi bilo treba dejansko upoštevati tudi dostop do tistih vsebinskih delov dokumentov, ki so pomembni za prosilca;
Recalls that Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 establishes a clear obligation for the institutions to grant access to all those parts of the document that are not covered by any of the exceptions; notes that the partial access granted is often unduly limited, and stresses that access should be given genuine consideration in relation also to those substantive parts of documents that are of interest to the applicant;
opozarja, da skuša sedanji člen 4(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 omejiti t. i. „prostor za razmislek“, saj kot temeljni pogoj za zavrnitev dostopa določa, da bi moralo razkritje dokumenta ne zgolj oslabiti , temveč „resno oslabiti “ postopek odločanja, vseeno pa dovoljuje, da se te omejitve ne upoštevajo, kadar prevlada javni interes za razkritje; poudarja, da je kljub zgoraj predstavljenim ugotovitvam opredelitev v omenjenem členu 4(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 odprta ter ne navaja jasnih pogojev za uporabo tega pojma in ne upošteva sodne prakse Sodišča; poudarja, da je potrebna ustrezna opredelitev, skladna s pojmom pravne varnosti, in sicer z zožitvijo pojma,
Points out that the current Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeks to limit the scope of the ‘space to think’ by stipulating that, as a prerequisite for refusal to grant access, disclosure of the document must not merely undermine the decision-making process, but must ‘seriously’ undermine it, and in any case allowing this limit to be overstepped where there is ‘an overriding public interest in disclosure’; stresses however that in spite of the above-mentioned considerations, Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 contains an open-ended definition which does not provide clear conditions for application or take into account the case-law of the Court of Justice; stresses the need for an appropriate definition in accordance with the concept of legal certainty by narrowing the concept;
poudarja, da so trialogi in spravni postopki (kot je izrecno navedeno v členu 294 PDEU) bistvena faza zakonodajnega postopka in ne ločen „prostor za razmislek“; meni zlasti, da sedanji postopki glede trialogov pred morebitnim sporazumom v prvi obravnavi ne zagotavljajo zadovoljive ravni zakonodajne preglednosti in dostopa do dokumentov tako znotraj Parlamenta kot v zunanjih odnosih z državljani in javnim mnenjem; zato zahteva, da se dokumenti, ki nastanejo v njihovem okviru, kot so dnevni redi, povzetki izidov in dokumenti v štirih stolpcih, sestavljeni z namenom olajšati pogajanja, načeloma ne obravnavajo različno od drugih zakonodajnih dokumentov ter da so v okviru trialogov pred morebitnim sporazumom v prvi obravnavi dostopni javnosti; zato naroča svojim pristojnim organom, naj standardizirajo ta postopek, ter poziva druge institucije, naj storijo enako;
Emphasises that trialogues and the conciliation procedures (as explicitly listed in Article 294 TFEU) are a substantial phase of the legislative procedure, and not a separate ‘space to think’; believes especially that the current procedures as regards trilogues prior to a possible first reading agreement fail to ensure a satisfactory level of legislative transparency and access to documents both internally, to the Parliament, and externally in relation to citizens and public opinion; requests, therefore, that documents created in their framework, such as agendas, summaries of outcomes and the ‘four column’ documents drawn up for facilitating negotiations, should not in principle be treated differently from other legislative documents, and that they should be made public as regards trialogues prior to a possible first reading agreement; consequently instructs its competent bodies to standardise this procedure, and calls on other institutions to do the same;
opozarja, da je treba vzpostaviti ustrezno ravnotežje med preglednostjo in varstvom podatkov Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 45/2001 z dne 18. decembra 2000 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL L 8, 12.1.2001, str.
Highlights the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p.
, kot je bilo jasno izpostavljeno v sodni praksi primera
, as made clear by the
, ter poudarja, da varstva podatkov ne bi smeli zlorabljati, zlasti za namen prikrivanja nasprotij interesov in nedopustnega vplivanja v okviru uprave in odločanja v EU; opozarja, da sodba Sodišča v zadevi
case-law, and stresses that data protection should not be ‘misused’, in particular, for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the
temelji na sedanjem besedilu Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 in zakonodajni oblasti ne preprečuje spremembe ubeseditve, kar je potrebno in nujno, zlasti po jasni razglasitvi pravice do dostopa do dokumentov v Pogodbah in v Listini o temeljnih pravicah;
case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the wording from being changed, which is necessary and urgent, notably after the clear proclamation of the right of access to documents in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
pozdravlja soglasje, ki sta ga evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov in evropski varuh človekovih pravic dosegla glede ustreznega ravnotežja med varstvom podatkov in preglednostjo, zlasti glede proaktivnega pristopa, ki pomeni, da institucije presodijo in nato posameznikom, na katere se podatki nanašajo, jasno povedo – pred ali vsaj med zbiranjem podatkov – kolikšna je verjetnost, da bodo v okviru obdelave ti podatki javno razkriti Evropski nadzornik za varstvo podatkov, „Public access to documents containing personal data after the Bavarian Lager ruling“ (Javni dostop do dokumentov, ki vsebujejo osebne podatke, po odločitvi v zadevi
Welcomes the consensus reached by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Ombudsman on the appropriate balance between data protection and transparency, especially as regards the proactive approach meaning that ‘institutions assess and subsequently make clear to data subjects – before or at least at the moment they collect their data – the extent to which the processing of such data includes or might include its public disclosure’ EDPS, ‘Public access to documents containing personal data after the
, 24. marec 2011 (http://www.edps.europa.eu:80/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Papers/BackgroundP/11-03-24_Bavarian_Lager_EN.pdf) in „Public access to documents and data protection“ (Dostop javnosti do dokumentov in varstvo podatkov), 2005 (http://www.edps.europa.eu:80/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Papers/BackgroundP/05-07_BP_accesstodocuments_EN.pdf).
ruling’, 24 March 2011 (http://www.edps.europa.eu:80/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Papers/BackgroundP/11-03-24_Bavarian_Lager_EN.pdf) and ‘Public access to documents and data protection, 2005 (http://www.edps.europa.eu:80/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/EDPS/Publications/Papers/BackgroundP/05-07_BP_accesstodocuments_EN.pdf).
poudarja številne razlike med Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001 in Aarhuško konvencijo, kot se izvaja z Uredbo (ES) št. 1367/2006, na primer pomanjkanje „absolutnih“ razlogov za zavrnitev v Aarhuški konvenciji, izjeme, ki se sklicujejo na varovanje vojaških zadev, finančno, monetarno ali ekonomsko politiko Unije ali držav članic, pravne nasvete ali preglede, preiskave in revizije, pa tudi omejitev izjeme poslovnega interesa na primere, ko tako zaupnost zaradi zaščite legitimnega ekonomskega interesa varuje zakon;
Emphasises several divergences between Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the Aarhus Convention, as being applied by Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, such as the lack in the Aarhus Convention of ‘absolute’ grounds for refusal, and exceptions based on protection of military matters, financial, monetary or economic policy of the Union or a Member State, legal advice or inspections, investigations and audits, and the limitation of the commercial interest exception to cases where such confidentiality is protected by law in order to protect a legitimate economic interest‘;
poziva vse institucije, organe, urade in agencije EU, naj Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001 izvajajo skladno z določbami Aarhuške konvencije; glede tega poziva Komisijo, naj objavi študijo o preverjanju skladnosti prenosa okoljskih direktiv EU Glej nerešeno zadevo
Calls on all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a way coherent with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention; calls in that regard on the Commission to make public the conformity-checking studies regarding transposition of EU environmental directives See pending case
ClientEarth proti Komisiji
ClientEarth v Commission
in znanstvene študije, na primer o učinku biogoriv Glej nerešeno zadevo
and scientific studies, for example on the impact of biofuels See pending cases
ClientEarth in drugi proti Komisiji
ClientEarth and Others v Commission
, ter poziva Evropsko agencijo za kemikalije, naj v celoti uporablja člen 119 Uredbe (ES) št. 1907/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18. decembra 2006 o registraciji, evalvaciji, avtorizaciji in omejevanju kemikalij (REACH) UL L 396, 30.12.2006, str.
, and calls on the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to fully apply Article 119 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p.
v zvezi z elektronskim dostopom javnosti, naj sprejme samo tiste zahteve za ohranjanje zaupnosti, ki so jasno upravičene kot veljavne na podlagi člena 119(2) uredbe REACH, ter naj informacije, za katere običajno velja, da spodkopavajo zaščito komercialnih interesov v skladu s členom 118(2) uredbe REACH, razlaga strogo in ne glede na obveznosti v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1049/2001, da je treba za vsak primer posebej pretehtati, ali javni interes prevladuje nad potrebo po ohranjanju zaupnosti;
with regard to electronic public access, to only accept confidentiality claims that are clearly justified as valid under Article 119(2) of REACH, and to interpret the information that is normally deemed to undermine the protection of commercial interests pursuant to Article 118(2) of REACH strictly and without prejudice to its obligation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 to balance any granting of confidentiality against a possible overriding public interest on a case-by-case basis;
poudarja, da bi bilo treba pri morebitni reviziji Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 v celoti upoštevati Aarhuško konvencijo ter vse izjeme določiti tako, da bodo z njo popolnoma skladne;
Stresses that any revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should fully respect the Aarhus Convention and should define any exemption in full compliance with it;
poudarja, da se dokumenti, povezani z mednarodnimi sporazumi, tudi dokumenti, ki jih sprejme kateri koli organ, katerega naloga je izvajanje ali spremljanje izvajanja takih sporazumov, ali se mu taki dokumenti predložijo razkrijejo javnosti, saj niso brezpogojno izključeni iz javnega dostopa, ter da se dostop do njih zavrne samo, če škoduje mednarodnim odnosom ter ob upoštevanju člena 4(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 o posvetovanju s tretjimi stranmi; poudarja, da bi bilo treba zaradi zavezujoče narave mednarodnih sporazumov, glede izjem uvesti preskus javnega interesa; opozarja, da je Parlamentu, ki ga izvolijo državljani EU, v skladu s Pogodbami zaupana institucionalna vloga pri zastopanju javnega interesa; izraža trdno odločenost zagotoviti, da se bodo v celoti spoštovale nove institucionalne pristojnosti, ki jih Evropskemu parlamentu daje Lizbonska pogodba (člen 218 PDEU) na področju mednarodnih sporazumov, ter da tega ne sme ovirati noben dvostranski sporazum s tretjimi državami;
Stresses that documents relating to international agreements, including documents adopted by, or submitted to, any bodies which have the task of implementing or monitoring the application of such agreements, should be disclosed to the public, as they are not categorically excluded from public access, and that access to them should be refused only when there is real harm to international relations, and taking into account Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on consultations with a third party; emphasises that since international agreements have binding effects, a public interest test should be introduced with regard to the exception; points out that Parliament, which is elected by the EU's citizens, is entrusted by the Treaties with an institutional role in representing the public interest; expresses its firm determination to make sure that the new institutional prerogatives assigned to Parliament by the Lisbon Treaty (Article 218 TFEU) in the field of international agreements are fully respected, and that no bilateral agreements with third countries may prohibit this;