natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Journalists accounted for only 6,3 % of applicants at the confirmatory stage, mainly because for journalists the institutions' public document registers represent only one of several possible sources of information.
Novinarji so predstavljali zgolj 6,3 % prosilcev v potrdilni fazi, predvsem zaradi tega, ker so za novinarje javni registri institucij le eden izmed ve_13 mo_11nih virov informacij.
Moreover, the vast majority of journalists are mainly interested in the latest news.
Poleg tega veliko ve_13ino novinarjev zanimajo predvsem zadnje novice.
It is therefore not surprising that the few applications for access from journalists came in the main from the field of investigative journalism and were hence similar to applications from academics.
Zato ne presene_13a dejstvo, da je tistih nekaj pro_9enj za dostop, ki so jih poslali novinarji, prispelo predvsem s podro_13ja raziskovalnega novinarstva, torej so bile podobne pro_9njam, ki so jih poslali akademiki.
As regards the geographical distribution of applicants, the majority of initial applications came from Belgium (27,5 %), Germany (12,7 %) and the United Kingdom (7,9 %).
Kar zadeva geografsko zastopanost prosilcev, je ve_13ina za_13etnih pro_9enj prispela iz Belgije (27,5 %), Nem_13ije (12,7 %) in Zdru_11enega kraljestva (7,9 %).
Applications originating from non-EU countries represented 6,7 % of the total.
Pro_9nje iz dr_11av, ki niso _13lanice EU, so predstavljale 6,7 % vseh pro_9enj.
Confirmatory applications came mainly from the following five countries: Belgium (28,1 %), the United Kingdom (18,8 %), Germany (12,5 %), Italy (9,4 %) and the Netherlands (9,4 %) 10.
Potrdilne pro_9nje so prispele predvsem iz naslednjih petih dr_11av: Belgije (28,1 %), Zdru_11enega kraljestva (18,8 %), Nem_13ije (12,5 %), Italije (9,4 %) in Nizozemske (9,4 %)10.
The relatively high number of initial and confirmatory applications originating from Belgium is explained by the fact that several multinational companies and international law firms, as well as numerous associations representing various economic and industrial sectors at European level have their headquarters in Brussels.
Sorazmerno visoko _9tevilo za_13etnih in potrdilnih pro_9enj iz Belgije pojasnjuje dejstvo, da ima veliko multinacionalnih dru_11b in mednarodnih pravni_9kih pisarn kot tudi veliko zdru_11enj, ki zastopajo razne gospodarske in industrijske sektorje na evropski ravni, svoje sede_11e v Bruslju.
As regards the fields covered by the applications, the interest in Justice and Home Affairs remained high (22,5 %) 11.
Kar zadeva podro_13ja, na katera se nana_9ajo pro_9nje, je bilo _9e vedno veliko zanimanja na podro_13ju
Applicants' interest in the CFSP (12,8 % of applications in 2005 as against 14,6 % in 2004) and the environment (7,7 % in 2005, 6,8 % in 2004) remained fairly steady, whereas internal-market-related
Zanimanje prosilcev za SZVP (12,8 % pro_9enj v 2005 za razliko od 14,6 % v 2004) in okolje (7,7 % v 2005, 6,8 % v 2004) je ostalo precej stabilno, medtem ko se je na podro_13ju notranjega trga _9tevilo
12 applications were sharply down on the previous year (6,2 % in 2005, 14,2% in 2004)
12 pro_9enj mo_13no zmanj_9alo glede na leto poprej (6,2 % v 2005 za razliko od 14,2 % v 2004)
During the reference period, the General Secretariat examined 9 457 documents, 7 535 of which were made available in the initial stage (reply supplied by the General Secretariat on behalf of the Council).
V referen_13nem obdobju je generalni sekretariat preu_13il 9.457 dokumentov, od katerih je bilo 7.535 dostopnih v za_13etni fazi (odgovor je v imenu Sveta poslal generalni sekretariat).
51 confirmatory applications were made in respect of 253 documents, as a result of which the Council decided to disclose an additional 130 documents (60 in full and 70 in part).
Za 253 dokumentov je bilo vlo_11enih 51 potrdilnih pro_9enj, zaradi _13esar se je Svet odlo_13il razkriti dodatnih 130 dokumentov (60 v celoti in 70 delno).
In 2004, most confirmatory applications came from Belgium (48,3 %), the United Kingdom (20,7 %) and Italy (10,3 %).
Leta 2004 je ve_13ina potrdilnih pro_9enj prispela iz Belgije (48,3 %), Zdru_11enega kraljestva (20,7 %) in Italije (10,3 %).
This figure is slightly up on the previous year.
Glede na preteklo leto se je _9tevilo nekoliko pove_13alo.
In 1999 justice and home affairs accounted for 37 % of applications for access, a percentage which fell to 29 % in 2000, 29,5 % in 2001, 24,4 % in 2002 and 22 % in 2003.
Leta 1999 so pro_9nje za dostop na podro_13ju pravosodja in notranjih zadev predstavljale 37 % vseh pro_9enj, ta odstotek pa je nato padel na 29 % leta 2000, 29,5 % leta 2001, 24,4 % leta 2002 in 22 % leta 2003.
Of the documents disclosed in full following application for access, more than 19 % related to justice and home affairs, 12,6 % to the CFSP, 14,2 % to the area of education, youth and culture, 11,3 % to the internal market and 8,9 % to environmental policy.
Od dokumentov, razkritih v celoti po prejemu pro_9nje za dostop, se jih je 19 % nana_9alo na pravosodje in notranje zadeve, 12,6 % na SZVP, 14,2 % na podro_13je izobra_11evanja, mladine in kulture, 11,3 % na notranji trg ter 8,9 % na okoljsko politiko.
Of the total number of documents disclosed (in full or in part), 22,2 % concerned justice and home affairs 13,3 % CFSP, 12,2 % the area of education, youth and culture, 10,4 % the internal market and 8,3 % environmental policy.
Od skupnega _9tevila dokumentov (razkritih v celoti ali deloma) je 22,2 % dokumentov zadevalo pravosodje in notranje zadeve, 13,3 % SZVP, 12,2 % podro_13je izobra_11evanja, mladine in kulture, 10,4 % notranji trg ter 8,3 % okoljsko politiko.
Thus, of the 9 457 documents requested during the reference period, access to 1 669 was refused (initial and confirmatory phases taken together), giving an access percentage of 67,3 % (documents requested and disclosed in full) or 81,2 % if documents approved for partial access are taken into account.
Tako je bil izmed 9.457 zahtevanih dokumentov v referen_13nem obdobju za 1.669 dokumentov dostop zavrnjen (v za_13etni in potrdilni fazi skupaj), kar pomeni odstotek odobrenih dostopov v vi_9ini 67,3 % (zahtevanih dokumentov, razkritih v celoti) oziroma 81,2 %, _13e se upo_9tevajo dokumenti, za katere se je odobril delni dostop.
While the rates of access to Council documents in 2005 were lower than in the previous year (85,7 % in 2004), these figures must be viewed in the light of the significant numbers of documents (77 832 in 2005 compared with 68 996 in 2004) which are made directly available via the register as soon as they have been circulated.
_12eprav se je stopnja dostopa do dokumentov Sveta v letu 2005 zmanj_9ala v primerjavi s preteklim letom (85,7 % v 2004), je treba to dejstvo razumeti v lu_13i znatnega _9tevila dokumentov, ki prek registra postanejo neposredno dostopni takoj po objavi (77.832 v 2005 v primerjavi z 68.996 v 2004).
The enhanced practice of partial access should also be taken into account.
Upo_9tevati je treba tudi vse ve_13 primerov delnega dostopa.
In 2005, 1 096 documents were partially released to the public in reply to initial applications (902 in 2004), 76 following confirmatory applications (47 in 2004) and 2 documents after examination of complaints to the European Ombudsman (1 in 2004).
Leta 2005 je bilo javnosti delno dostopnih 1096 dokumentov v odgovor na za_13etne pro_9nje (902 v letu 2004), 76 po potrdilnih pro_9njah (47 v letu 2004) in 2 dokumenta po preu_13itvi prito_11b, naslovljenih na Evropskega varuha _13lovekovih pravic (1 v letu 2004).
With initial applications, the grounds for refusal most frequently invoked were the protection of the decisionmaking process, which accounted for nearly half of all refusals (48,3 %), followed by the protection of the public interest as regards international relations (20,6 %), public security (15,8 %) and defence and military matters (6,4 %).
Pri za_13etnih pro_9njah je bil najpogosteje navedeni razlog za zavrnitev varstvo postopka odlo_13anja, ki je bil naveden pri skoraj polovici vseh zavrnitev (48,3 %), sledijo mu varstvo javnega interesa, kar zadeva mednarodne odnose (20,6 %), javno varnost (15,8 %), ter obrambne in voja_9ke zadeve (6,4 %).
In 6,1 % of cases several grounds for refusal were invoked: thus protection of the decisionmaking process was often given in conjunction with protection of the public interest as regards international relations (1,4 %) or public security (0,8 %).
Pri 6,1 % primerov je bilo navedenih ve_13 razlogov za zavrnitev: tako je bilo varstvo postopka odlo_13anja pogosto navedeno v povezavi z varstvom javnega interesa, kar zadeva mednarodne odnose (1,4 %) ali javno varnost (0,8 %).
With regard to confirmatory applications, protection of the public interest as regards public security was invoked as grounds for 49,6 % of refusals in 2005 (27 % in 2004).
V zvezi s potrdilnimi pro_9njami je bilo varstvo javnega interesa, kar zadeva javno varnost, navedeno kot razlog za 49,6 % zavrnitev leta 2005 (27 % leta 2004).
In 2005 protection of the public interest as regards international relations was invoked in 20,3 % of cases (21,2 % in 2004), and protection of the public interest as regards defence and military matters in 5,7 % of cases (25,9 % in 2004).
V letu 2005 je bilo varstvo javnega interesa v zvezi z mednarodnimi odnosi navedeno kot razlog pri 20,3 % primerov (21,2% v 2004) ter v zvezi z obrambnimi in voja_9kimi zadevami pri 5,7 % primerov (25,9 % v 2004).
The situation regarding use of the protection of the decisionmaking process as grounds for refusing access was unchanged compared with the previous year: in 2005 it was used in 11,4 % of cases (11,8 % in 2004).
Glede uporabe varstva postopka odlo_13anja kot razloga za zavrnitev dostopa, se stanje v primerjavi s preteklim letom ni spremenilo: v letu 2005 se je uporabilo pri 11,4 % primerov (11,8 % v 2004).
Finally, in 13 % of refusals protection of the decisionmaking process was associated with other grounds for refusal, such as protection of the public interest as regards public security (3,3 % of cases).
Pri 13 % zavrnitev pa se je varstvo postopka odlo_13anja nana_9alo na druge razloge za zavrnitev, npr. varstvo javnega interesa, kar zadeva javno varnost (3,3 % primerov).
Specific exception for legal advice
Posebne izjeme za pravno svetovanje
The protection of court proceedings and legal advice (exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001) was invoked as grounds in the initial phase in a mere 1,8 % of refusals in 2005 (8,8 % in 2004).
Varstvo sodnih postopkov in pravnih nasvetov (izjema, predvidena v drugi alinei _13lena 4(2) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001) je bilo navedeno kot razlog v za_13etni fazi pri zgolj 1,8 % zavrnitev v letu 2005 (8,8 % v 2004).
It was not invoked at all at the confirmatory stage during the period under consideration, whereas it had been the grounds for 4,7 % of refusals in 2004.
Ta razlog v potrdilni fazi v obravnavanem obdobju sploh ni bil naveden, medtem ko je bil leta 2004 naveden za 4,7 % zavrnitev.
While this exception is not the Council's most frequently invoked grounds for refusal, its importance for the proper functioning and effectiveness of the institution's work should nevertheless be stressed 13.
_12eprav ta izjema ni najpogosteje navedeni razlog Sveta za zavrnitev, je vendarle treba poudariti njen pomen za pravilno in u_13inkovito delovanje institucije13.
The practice is as far as possible to grant partial access, in accordance with Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to documents containing Council Legal Service opinions and contributions by the Legal Service to the proceedings of the Council and its preparatory bodies.
V praksi se, kolikor je mogo_13e pogosto, v skladu s _13lenom 4(6) Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001 odobri delni dostop do dokumentov, ki vsebujejo mnenja Pravne slu_11be Sveta in prispevke Pravne slu_11be k postopkom Sveta in njegovih pripravljalnih teles.
Thus the factual content of such documents is released to the applicants, while the confidentiality of legal opinions as such is safeguarded.
Tako je konkretna vsebina takih dokumentov razkrita prosilcem, medtem ko je zaupnost pravnih mnenj kot taka varovana.
On the basis of case-law established over several years 14, and confirmed in 2004 by the Court of First Instance in its judgment in the Turco case 15, the Council considers that the independent advice provided for the Council by the Legal Service allows the Council to ensure that its acts comply with Community law and to pursue the discussion on the legal aspects of a dossier.
Na podlagi ve_13letne sodne prakse14, in kakor jo je leta 2004 potrdilo Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje v svoji sodbi v primeru Turco15, Svet meni, da lahko zaradi neodvisnega svetovanja, ki mu ga nudi Pravna slu_11ba, zagotavlja, da so njegova dejanja v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, in pospe_9uje razprave o pravnih vidikih posameznih primerov. _12e bi Svet izgubil ta instrument, bi bila uspe_9nost njegovega delovanja ogro_11ena.
If the Council were to lose that instrument, the efficiency of its work would be compromised.
Zato je v interesu javnosti, da ima Svet dostop do neodvisnega pravnega svetovanja.
In this connection, see the order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 1998 in Case T-610/97 R, Carlsen and others v. Council, ECR 1998, p.
V zvezi s tem glej odredbo Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje z dne 3. marca 1998 v primeru T-610/97 R, Carlsen in drugi proti Svetu, PSES 1998, str.
II-485, paragraphs 45 to 47, and its ruling of 8 November 2000 in case T-44/97, Ghignone and others v. Council, ECR 2000, p.
II-485, odstavki 45 do 47, in njegovo odlo_13itev z dne 8. novembra 2000 v primeru T-44/97, Ghignone in drugi proti Svetu, PSES 2000, str.
II-1023, paragraphs 47 and 48.
II-1023, odstavka 47 in 48.
This case-law was cited by the Court in its order of 23 October 2002 in case C-445/00, Austria v. Council, paragraph 12.
To sodno prakso je Sodi_9_13e citiralo v svoji odredbi z dne 23. oktobra 2002 v primeru C-445/00, Avstrija proti Svetu, odstavek 12.
See judgment by the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Maurizio Turco v. Council (not yet published in the ECR), paragraphs 62 et seq.
Glej sodbo Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje z dne 23. novembra 2004 v primeru T-84/03 Maurizio Turco proti Svetu (_9e ni objavljena v PSES), odstavek 62 in nadaljnji odstavki.
An Interinstitutional Committee to examine best practice, address possible conflicts and discuss future developments on public access to documents was established in 2002 under Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Leta 2002 je bil v skladu s _13lenom 15(2) Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001 ustanovljen medinstitucionalni odbor, ki preu_13uje najbolj_9e prakse, obravnava morebitne spore in razpravlja o nadaljnjem razvoju na podro_13ju dostopa do dokumentov.
The Interinstitutional Committee met once at Secretary-General level (Council, Parliament and Commission) during the reference period.
Leta 2005 je bilo sklicanih tudi ve_13 sestankov med slu_11bami Sveta, Parlamenta in Komisije, ki so odgovorne za uporabo Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001.
The main items discussed at the meeting of the Secretaries-General of the three institutions on 11 November 2005 were: the future revision of Regulation No 1049/2001 in the light of the Commission's evaluation report (COM(2004) 45), the establishment of the new Commission register of comitology, and the scope for improving the institutions' document registers in order to make them more user-friendly and accessible to the general public.
Glavne to_13ke, o katerih je na sestanku generalnih sekretarjev treh institucij 11. novembra 2005 tekla razprava, so bile: prihodnja revizija Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001 glede na ocenjevalno poro_13ilo Komisije (COM(2004) 45), oblikovanje novega komitolo_9kega registra Komisije ter obseg izbolj_9anja registrov institucij, da bi postali prijaznej_9i za uporabnika in dostopnej_9i splo_9ni javnosti.
At the end of its meeting the Interinstitutional Committee decided to endorse the Commission's evaluation report (COM(2004) 45) and to set up a technical working party charged with looking critically at the sites of the three registers, with the remit to explore possible improvements to and the harmonisation and interlinking of the three sites.
Ob koncu sestanka je medinstitucionalni odbor sklenil, da bo podprl ocenjevalno poro_13ilo Komisije (COM(2004) 45) ter ustanovil tehni_13no delovno skupino, zadol_11eno za kriti_13no spremljanje vseh treh registrov in poobla_9_13eno za preu_13itev morebitnih izbolj_9av ter uskladitev in medsebojno povezavo teh treh strani.
As part of the interinstitutional dialogue on the various aspects of transparency a meeting was held on 23 November 2005 between the Secretaries-Generals of the European institutions and the members of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
V okviru medinstitucionalnega dialoga glede razli_13nih vidikov preglednosti je 23. novembra 2005 potekal sestanek med generalnimi sekretarji evropskih institucij in _13lani Odbora Evropskega parlamenta za dr_11avljanske svobo_9_13ine, pravosodje in notranje zadeve.
At that meeting, the Secretaries-General took stock of the measures taken by their institutions with regard to document access and to public access to the decisionmaking process and the related issues.
Na tem sestanku so generalni sekretarji preu_13ili ukrepe, ki so jih njihove institucije sprejele glede dostopa do dokumentov in dostopa javnosti do postopka odlo_13anja ter s tem povezanih vpra_9anj.
Mention was also made of a series of practical measures (taken or planned) designed to enable the public to identify readily online the preparatory documents of the Community institutions, where these are acting in a legislative capacity.
Omenjena je bila tudi vrsta prakti_13nih ukrepov (sprejetih ali na_13rtovanih), katerih namen je omogo_13iti javnosti takoj_9nje prepoznavanje pripravljalnih dokumentov na spletnih straneh institucij Skupnosti, _13e te delujejo v zakonodajni pristojnosti.
Council conclusions of 21 December 2005 on improving openness and transparency in the Council
Vpra_9anje dostopa javnosti do razprav Sveta o zakonodajnih aktih je bilo klju_13nega pomena v okviru medinstitucionalnega dialoga v vsem letu 2005. Ukrepi Sveta, navedeni v njegovih sklepih z dne 21.
The question of public access to the Council's deliberations on legislative acts was central to the interinstitutional dialogue throughout 2005.
16, ter splo_9na politika preglednosti, ki jo je Evropski svet sprejel junija 2006
The measures taken by the Council and listed in its conclusions of 21 December 2005 16 and the overall policy on transparency adopted by the European Council in June 2006 17 reflect the importance that the Community institutions henceforward attach to the principle of public access to the decisionmaking process.
17, odra_11ajo decembra 2005 pomen, ki ga institucije Skupnosti odslej pripisujejo na_13elu dostopa javnosti do postopka odlo_13anja.
Under the measures adopted by the Council in December 2005 and by the European Council in June 2006 all Council deliberations on legislative acts to be adopted by co-decision are open to the public, as are the votes and the explanation of votes by Council members.
V skladu z ukrepi, ki sta jih sprejela Svet decembra 2005 in Evropski svet junija 2006, so vse razprave Sveta o zakonodajnih aktih, ki so predmet postopka soodlo_13anja, javne, objavi pa se tudi glasovanje in obrazlo_11itev glasov _13lanov Sveta. To pomeni, da se vsi dokumenti, ki so navedeni na dnevnem redu
This means that all documents mentioned on the agenda for a Council meeting open to the public are published before that Council meeting is held18.
18 zasedanja Sveta, odprtega za javnost, objavijo _9e pred tem zasedanjem Sveta
In addition, in order to ensure that the general public has as wide an access as possible, from the summer of 2006 all public debates and deliberations, as well as public votes on co-decision items, will be broadcast in all languages through video-streaming on the Council's internet website.
Poleg tega se za zagotovitev _13im _9ir_9ega dostopa splo_9ne javnosti od poletja 2006 dalje vse javne razprave in posvetovanja kot tudi javna glasovanja glede to_13k v postopku soodlo_13anja predvajajo v vseh jezikih prek videoprenosa na spletni strani Sveta.
COMPLAINTS LODGED LEGAL ACTION TAKEN
PRITO_10BE, NASLOVLJENE NA EVROPSKEGA VARUHA _12LOVEKOVIH PRAVIC, IN PRAVNO UKREPANJE
COMPLAINTS LODGED WITH THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
PRITO_10BE, NASLOVLJENE NA EVROPSKEGA VARUHA _12LOVEKOVIH PRAVIC
The following section of this report refers to a number of complaints lodged with the European Ombudsman in cases where Regulation No 1049/2001 was applied.
Naslednje poglavje tega poro_13ila se nana_9a na _9tevilne prito_11be, naslovljene na Evropskega varuha _13lovekovih pravic, v primerih, v katerih je _9lo za uporabo Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001.
Of the complaints already examined in the Council's annual report on 2004, two cases are mentioned on which the Ombudsman had not yet decided when the previous Council's annual report was published 19.
Od prito_11b, ki so _11e bile preu_13ene v letnem poro_13ilu Sveta 2004, sta omenjena dva primera, o katerih varuh _13lovekovih pravic _9e ni odlo_13al, ko je bilo objavljeno prej_9nje letno poro_13ilo Sveta19.
Moreover, this report examines at some length the only complaint lodged in 2005 concerning the Council's application of
V tem poro_13ilu je temeljito preu_13ena tudi edina prito_11ba, vlo_11ena leta 2005, ki zadeva uporabo Uredbe _9t.
Regulation No 1049/2001.
1049/2001 s strani Sveta.
This complaint did not concern the right of access to documents in the strict sense, but rather the public nature of the Council's decisionmaking process in the broad sense of the term 20.
20 dostopnost javnosti do postopka odlo_13anja v Svetu v _9ir_9em smislu
By letter dated 18 September 2003 addressed to the Secretary-General/High Representative, the complainants suggested that the Council's Rules of Procedure be amended, in order to ensure that sessions of the Council, when it convened in its capacity as legislator, were held in public.
Prito_11niki so v pismu z dne 18. septembra 2003, naslovljenem na generalnega sekretarja/visokega predstavnika, predlagali spremembo poslovnika Sveta z namenom, da bi bila zasedanja Sveta, ko je ta sklican kot zakonodajno telo, javna.
In his reply dated 19 November 2003, the Secretary-General recalled that the provisions laid down in Article 8 of the Council's Rules of Procedure reflected the compromise reached by the Heads of State or Government at the Seville European Council meeting in the framework of a reform process which represented a substantial change to the existing procedures, the purpose of which was to enhance the efficiency of the Council's work prior to the enlargement of the European Union in 2004.
V svojem odgovoru z dne 19. novembra 2003 je generalni sekretar opozoril, da dolo_13be v _13lenu 8 poslovnika Sveta odra_11ajo kompromis, ki je bil sklenjen med predsedniki dr_11av ali vlad na zasedanju Evropskega sveta v Sevilli v okviru reformnega procesa in ki predstavlja bistveno spremembo obstoje_13ih postopkov, katere namen je bil okrepiti u_13inkovitost delovanja Sveta pred _9iritvijo Evropske unije v letu 2004.
In their complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainants pointed out that the principle of holding Council sessions in public, when the Council was acting as legislator, was provided for in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
Prito_11niki so v svoji prito_11bi varuhu _13lovekovih pravic poudarili, da je na_13elo javnih razprav Sveta, ko ta zaseda kot zakonodajni organ, predvideno v Pogodbi o Ustavi za Evropo.
They also argued that the principle that decisions must be taken as openly as possible, which they read into Article 1(2) of the EU Treaty, was a general principle of law, which should be reflected in the Council’s Rules of Procedure.
Prav tako so trdili, da je na_13elo, po katerem se morajo odlo_13itve sprejemati kolikor je mogo_13e odprto, kar je po njihovem mnenju dolo_13eno v _13lenu 1(2) Pogodbe EU, splo_9no pravno na_13elo, ki se mora odra_11ati v poslovniku Sveta.