natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, according to Mr Turco, the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that it was lawful for the Council, on the basis of that provision, to refuse access to the legal opinion drawn up by the Council’s legal service on the proposal for a Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States.
Po njegovem mnenju naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem ko je odločilo, da je bila zavrnitev dostopa do pravnega mnenja pravne službe Sveta o predlogu direktive o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil v državah članicah, ki mu je Svet nasprotoval na podlagi te določbe, zakonita.
Mr Turco maintains that only Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 can provide a basis for a refusal to disclose legal opinions issued by the Council’s legal service relating to draft legislation.
V bistvu naj bi zavrnitev razkritja pravnega mnenja, ki ga izda pravna služba Sveta v zvezi s predlogom zakonodaje, temeljila le na členu 4(3) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
First the literal interpretation.
Besedilo člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t.
The wording of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 refers generally to the protection of ‘legal advice’.
1049/2001 na splo�no omenja varstvo „pravnih nasvetov [pravnih mnenj]“.
The wording used does not state that only legal advice relating to court proceedings would be covered, as would wording such as ‘court proceedings and in particular legal advice’ or ‘legal advice provided in the course of court proceedings’.
V sprejetem besedilu ni navedeno, da se nana�a le na pravna mnenja v zvezi s sodnimi postopki, kot to velja za besedilo „na sodn[e] postopk[e] in �e posebej na pravna mnenja“ ali „na pravna mnenja, izdana v okviru sodnih postopkov“.
Accordingly, where the legislature makes no distinction, no distinction should be made.
Torej tam, kjer ne razlikuje zakonodajalec, ni treba razlikovati.
Admittedly, it is apparent from settled caselaw that exceptions to the principle of the widest possible public access to documents held by the institutions must be interpreted and applied strictly.
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse jasno izhaja, da je treba izjeme od načela čim �ir�ega dostopa javnosti do dokumentov, ki jih izdajo institucije, razlagati in uporabljati ozko. 8 M.
8Mr Turco infers from this that it should be possible to refuse access to legal opinions given by the legal services of the institutions on draft legislation only by virtue of the more limited exception in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Turco iz tega sklepa, da bi bil dostop do pravnih mnenj, ki jih pravne službe institucij izdajo o predlogih zakonodaje, lahko zavrnjen le na podlagi bolj omejene izjeme iz člena 4(3) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
That exception is indeed applicable only to cases where disclosure of a document ‘would seriously undermine the institution’s decisionmaking process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure’, while under Article 4(2) access to a document is refused where disclosure ‘would undermine the protection of … legal advice … unless there is an overriding
Ta pa v bistvu velja le, kadar bi razkritje dokumenta „resno oslabilo postopek odločanja institucije, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje“, medtem ko je v skladu s členom 4(2) dostop do dokumenta zavrnjen, če bi njegovo razkritje „oslabilo varstvo pravnih mnenj, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje“ navedenega dokumenta. Pritožnik navaja to ugotovitev tudi na podlagi namenske razlage, ki
8 — For a recent restatement, see Case C-266/05 P Sison v Council [2007] ECR I-1233, paragraph 63, and Case T-36/04 API v Commission [2007] ECR II-3201, paragraph 53.
I-1233, točka 63) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 12. septembra 2007 v zadevi API proti Komisiji (T-36/04, ZOdl., str. II-3201, točka 53).
That argument does not stand up to scrutiny.
Strinjam se s Sodi�čem prve stopnje, da so člen 4(2) Uredbe �t.
I am in agreement with the Court of First Instance in considering that the wording of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the origin of the reference to legal advice in that provision and the practical effect of
1049/2001, omemba pravnih mnenj v tej določbi in koristen učinek te omembe namenjeni temu, da se ta
However, the principles of a strict interpretation of the exceptions and of a wide interpretation of the right of access apply only where there is a need for interpretation. In claris non fit interpretatio.
Vendar se načeli ozke razlage izjem in �iroke razlage pravice dostopa uporabljata le, kadar je mogoče razlagati in claris non fit interpretatio.
As the Court of First Instance correctly pointed out, 9the reference to ‘legal advice’ does not raise any difficulty of interpretation.
Torej, kot je Sodi�če pravilno poudarilo, 9omemba „pravnih nasvetov [pravnih mnenj]“ ne pomeni težav pri razlagi.
If that express reference to legal advice is intended to have a practical effect, it must be agreed that it does not cover only legal advice drawn up in the context of court proceedings, quite the reverse.
Če se torej želi doseči, da ima izrecna omemba pravnih mnenj koristen učinek, je treba priznati, da se ne nana�a le na pravna mnenja, izdelana v okviru sodnih postopkov, temveč prej nasprotno.
In the legislative context of the right of access to documents prior to Regulation No 1049/2001, the Court of First Instance had held that the protection of court proceedings covered ‘not only the pleadings or other documents lodged, internal documents concerning the investigation of the case before the court, but also correspondence concerning the case between the Directorate-General concerned and the Legal Service or a lawyers’ office’.
V normativnem kontekstu pravice dostopa do dokumentov, ki je obstajala pred Uredbo �t. 1049/2001, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v bistvu presodilo, da varstvo sodnih postopkov ne zajema „le vlog ali vloženih aktov, notranjih dokumentov v zvezi s pripravljalnim postopkom tekoče zadeve, ampak tudi sporočila v zvezi z zadevo med generalnim direktoratom in pravno službo ali odvetni�ko pisarno“.
11There is, prima facie, no reason to depart from that understanding of the expression ‘court proceedings’ in the context of the new legislative instrument constituted by Regulation No 1049/2001, 12because it was with knowledge of that caselaw meaning of ‘court proceedings’ that the reference to ‘legal advice’ was added to that regulation.
11Torej ne obstaja že vnaprej razlog, da se oddaljimo od tak�nega pomena pojma „sodni postopki“ v okviru novega zakonodajnega instrumenta, ki ga predstavlja Uredba �t. 1049/2001, 12 saj je bila omemba „pravnih nasvetov [pravnih mnenj]“ tej uredbi dodana ob upo�tevanju takega pravnega pomena pojma sodnih postopkov.
Accordingly, as the Court of First Instance correctly pointed out, 13since legal
1049/2001, mora imeti izjema, ki se nana�a na pravna menja iz iste določbe, nujno drugačen pomen in zajemati mora pravna mnenja, ki jih pravne službe institucij izdajo o predlogih zakonodaje, kot je to pravilno ugotovilo že Sodi�če prve stopnje. 13
That outcome, which is apparent from the wording of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, is reinforced by the lessons provided by the history of the reference to legal advice in that provision.
Ta rezultat, ki izhaja iz besedila člena 4(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, podkrepijo nauki, ki nam jih nudi zgodovina omembe pravnih mnenj v tej določbi.
The legislation which, prior to Regulation No 1049/2001, governed the right of access to documents provided expressly for an exception on the ground of confidentiality only in respect of the protection of court proceedings and not in favour of the protection of the legal advice of the institutions.
Besedila, ki so urejala pravico dostopa do dokumentov pred Uredbo �t. 1049/2001, so izjemo zaupnosti izrecno določala le zaradi varstva sodnih postopkov in ne za pravna mnenja institucij.
10 That is why the Community legislature intended to provide, in Regulation No 1049/2001, for an exception relating to legal advice alongside that relating to court proceedings.
10 Zakonodajalec skupnosti je v Uredbi �t. 1049/2001 zato poleg izjeme, ki velja za sodne postopke, želel določiti izjemo za pravna mnenja.
9 — Paragraph 61 of the judgment under appeal.
11 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 7. decembra 1999 v zadevi Interporc proti Komisiji (T-92/98, Recueil, str.
11 — Case T-92/98 Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR II-3521, paragraph 41.
II-3521, točka 41).
12 — The Court of First Instance has, moreover, explicitly held that this is the case: see Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04 Franchet and Byk v Commission [2006] ECR II-2023, paragraph 89, and API v Commission, paragraph 60.
12 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je o tem sicer izrecno tako odločilo: glej sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 6. julija 2006 v združenih zadevah Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji (T-391/03 in T-70/04, ZOdl., str. II-2023, točka 89) in zgoraj navedeno API proti Komisiji, točka 60.
10 — See code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents of 6 December 1993 (93/730/EC) (OJ 1993 L 340, p.
10 – Glej kodeks ravnanja v zvezi z dostopom javnosti do dokumentov Sveta in Komisije z dne 6. decembra 1993 (93/730/ES) (UL L 340, str.
41); Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 340, p.
41); Odločba Sveta 93/731/ES z dne 20. decembra 1993 (UL L 340, str.
43); Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p.
43); Odločba Komisije 94/90/ESPJ, ES, Euratom z dne 8. februarja 1994 (UL L 46, str.
58); and European Parliament Decision 97/632/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 10 July 1997 (OJ 1997 L 263, p. 27).
58) in Odločba Evropskega parlamenta 97/632/ES, ESPJ, Euratom z dne 10. julija 1997 (UL L 263, str. 27).
13 — Paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal.
13 – Točka 65 izpodbijane sodbe.
stability of the Community’s legal order and ‘court proceedings’.
„sodne postopke“ 16.
16 The first exception was subsequently reworded to include ‘the ability of the institutions to seek the advice of their legal services’ 17and, following legislative discussion, the wording was finally abridged and clarified to become that in Regulation No 1049/2001. 18
Prva je bila nato preoblikovana, da je zajemala „sposobnost institucij, da lahko zahtevajo mnenje svojih pravnih služb“ 17, ta izraz pa je bil po razpravi v zako- nodajnem postopku skraj�an in natančneje opredeljen, da je postala izjema tak�na, kot je zajeta v Uredbi �t. 1049/2001. 18
However, if that were the case, another formulation of the kind already mentioned above would undoubtedly have been used by the drafters of that regulation, such as ‘court proceedings and in particular legal advice’.
Vendar če bi to veljalo, bi avtorji navedene uredbe gotovo sprejeli drugačno, prej navedeno besedilo „na sodn[e] postopk[e] in �e posebej na pravna mnenja“.
Furthermore, the applicant’s assertion is disproved by the drafting history of Regulation No 1049/2001.
To trditev poleg tega zavračajo tudi pripravljalni dokumenti za Uredbo �t. 1049/2001.
That history clearly indicates that there was no intention at all to establish a link between ‘court proceedings’ and ‘legal advice’, but that the purpose of inserting ‘legal advice’ was to enshrine in legislation the judicial approach 14which, in order to protect the confidentiality of the opinions of the legal services of the institutions relating to draft legislation, had added to the categories of public interest expressly referred to by the legislative instruments then in force governing the right of access to documents those of ‘the stability of the Community legal order’ and the ‘proper functioning of the institutions’.
Ti jasno izkazujejo, da ni bilo nikoli načrtovano vzpostaviti povezavo med „sodnimi postopki“ in „pravnimi nasveti [pravnimi mnenji]“, ampak je bil namen uvrstitve slednje omembe, da se v besedilo sprejme sodni pristop, 14 ki je zaradi varstva tajnosti mnenj pravnih služb institucij, ki se nana�ajo na predloge zakonodaje, h kategorijam javnega interesa, ki so bile izrecno zajete v tedaj veljavnih zakonodajnih instrumentih, ki so se nana�ali na pravico dostopa do dokumentov, dodal kategoriji „stabilnosti skupnostne ureditve“ in „dobrega delovanja institucij“.
15As the Council has pointed out, the initial Commission proposal for a regulation provided for two separate exceptions, relating to the
15 Kot je opozoril Svet, je prvotni predlog uredbe Komisije pravzaprav določal dve različni izjemi, ki sta se nana�ali na „stabilnost pravnega reda Skupnosti“ in
Even if the legal opinions of the legal services of the institutions relating to draft legislation were covered by the exception on the ground of confidentiality provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2), both of the appellants complain that the Court of First Instance applied that exception broadly, which goes against the principle of the widest possible access to documents of the institutions, first, by holding that all legal opinions are by definition protected by that exception and, secondly, by excessively restricting the scope of the limit to the exception, related to the existence of an overriding public interest capable of nevertheless justifying the
Če predpostavimo, da se izjema zaupnosti iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, nana�a na pravna mnenja pravnih služb institucij o predlogih zakonodaje, potem pritožnika očitata Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da je to izjemo razlagalo �iroko, kar naj bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom najbolj �irokega dostopa do dokumentov institucij, prvič, s tem da je odločilo, da so vsa pravna mnenja po svojih značilnostih varovana s to izjemo, in drugič, s tem da je obseg izjeme pretirano omejilo na obstoj prevladujočega javnega interesa, ki lahko
14 — See the Order of the President of the Court of First Instance in Case T-610/97 R Carlsen and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-485.
14 – Glej sklep predsednika Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 3. marca 1998 v zadevi Carlsen in drugi proti Svetu (T-610/97 R, Recueil, str. II-485).
16 — Proposal for regulation 2000/C 177 E/10 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2000 C 177 E, p. 70).
16 – Predlog uredbe 2000/C 177 E/10 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL 2000, C 177 E, str. 70).
14938/00 of 22 December 2000).
14938/00 z dne 22. decembra 2000).
18 — Amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM(2001) 299 final, OJ 2001 C 240 E, p. 165).
15 – Pravni strokovnjaki se niso zmotili, ker so v tem videli ponovitev re�itve iz zadeve Carlsen: glej predvsem E. De Leeuw, „The regulation on public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents in the European Union: are citizens better off?“, ELR vol. 28 (2003), �t. 3, str. 324 in 334, ter Peers, S., „The new regulation on access to documents: a critical analysis“, YEL 2002, str. 385 in 400.
I will examine those two points in turn.
Ti dve navedbi bom preučil ločeno.
incorrect understanding of the scope of the exception relating to legal advice.
razumevanje obsega izjeme, ki velja za pravna mnenja.
(a) The principle of a case-by-case examination
a) Načelo presoje v vsakem primeru posebej
The task promises to be difficult.
Člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t.
The second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is one of those provisions whose application can seem to be mission impossible.
1049/2001 spada med besedila, katerih uporaba se lahko zdi nemogoča.
The legislature has in fact sought to bring together in the same legislative space two requirements which are perfectly contradictory and difficult to reconcile, irresistibly calling to mind Elizabeth Taylor’s words to Paul Newman in the film Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, based on the play by Tennessee Williams: ‘I’m not living with you.
Zakonodajalec je pravzaprav želel doseči soobstoj dveh predpisov, ki si popolnoma nasprotujeta in sta težko spravljiva, v istem zakonodajnem prostoru, kar neustavljivo spominja na tisto, kar je Elisabeth Taylor rekla Paulu Newmanu v filmu Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, ki temelji na delu Tennesseeja Williamsa: „I’m not living with you. We occupy the same cage, that’s all“.
The Court will scarcely be able to do more than attempt to reduce as much as possible the discomfort of cohabitation in that legislative ‘cage’.
Sodi�če lahko naredi komaj kaj drugega, kot da poskusi soobstoj spraviti v kar se da udobno normativno „kletko“.
The question of the application on a case-by-case basis of the exception on the ground of confidentiality laid down in respect of legal advice
Vpra�anje uporabe izjeme zaupnosti, določene za pravna mnenja, v vsakem primeru posebej
It is, admittedly, apparent from wellestablished caselaw that access to documents which have been requested can be refused only following an assessment, carried out in respect of each document requested, to determine, in the light of the information which it contains, whether its disclosure would actually undermine a public interest protected by an exception on the ground of confidentiality.
Res je, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da je zavrnitev dostopa do zapro�enih dokumentov mogoča le na podlagi presoje, ki se opravi za vsak zapro�en dokument z namenom, da se glede na njegovo vsebino ugotovi, ali bi razkritje res �kodilo javnemu interesu, ki ga varuje izjema zaupnosti.
That requirement for a specific and individual examination stems firstly from the principle that the exceptions to the right of access must be interpreted and applied strictly.
Zahteva po konkretni in posamični presoji izhaja najprej iz načela ozke razlage in uporabe izjem od pravice do dostopa.
19It is also imposed by the principle of proportionality which requires an institution to contemplate partial access to a document for the purpose of disclosing items of information therein which are not covered by an exception to the access to documents; 20 confidentiality can be extended only in so far as is necessary to protect the public interest justifying the derogation from the principle of transparency.
19Prav tako jo nalaga načelo sorazmernosti, ki institucijo zavezuje, da predvidi omejen dostop do dokumenta z namenom, da se razkrijejo podatki, ki jih vsebuje, za katere pa izjema od dostopa do dokumentov ne velja; 20zaupnost se v bistvu lahko raz�iri le, če to
Those approaches, which were already current under the law as it stood prior to Regulation No 1049/2001, are all the more valid under
I-1, točka 27) in sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. februarja 1998 v zadevi Interporc proti Komisiji (T-124/96, Recueil, str.
20 — See inter alia Case C-353/99 P Council v Hautala [2001] ECR I-9565, paragraphs 26 to 30; Case T-123/99 JT’s Corporation v Commission [2000] ECR II-3269, paragraph 44; and Kuijer v Council, paragraph 57.
I-9565, točke od 26 do 30) ter sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 12. oktobra 2000 v zadevi JT’s Corporation proti Komisiji (T-123/99, Recueil, str. II-3269, točka 44) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Kuijer proti Svetu, točka 57.
According to both appellants, the Court of First Instance erred in upholding the existence of a general need for confidentiality in respect of legal opinions, resulting in the exclusion of those opinions as a document category from the right of access.
Po mnenju obeh pritožnikov naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno določilo obstoj splo�ne potrebe po zaupnosti pravnih mnenj, kar naj bi imelo za posledico, da se pravica dostopa ne nana�a na pravna mnenja kot vrsto dokumentov.
In doing so, it failed to have regard to the requirement for an individual and specific examination since a request for access can be refused only in the light of the content of each document requested.
S tem naj ne bi izpolnilo zahteve po posamični in konkretni presoji, saj se pro�nja za dostop lahko zavrne le glede na vsebino vsakega zapro�enega dokumenta.
That plea cannot be upheld as it is based in part on an incorrect reading of the judgment under appeal and in part on an
Temu očitku ni mogoče ugoditi, ker delno temelji na nepravilnem branju izpodbijane sodbe v delu, ki se nana�a na nepravilno
In the present case, however, the Court of First Instance, far from permitting the Council, as the appellants allege, to carry out an abstract and overall assessment of the risk of undermining the protection of legal advice which disclosure of the document requested would have created, acted in accordance with the principles set out above.
V obravnavanem primeru je Sodi�če prve stopnje, daleč od tega, da bi Svetu dovolilo, da opravi abstraktno in splo�no presojo glede možnosti slab�ega varstva pravnih mnenj zaradi razkritja zapro�enega dokumenta, kar mu očitata pritožnika, ravnalo v skladu z zgoraj omenjenimi načeli.
After expressly pointing out the Council’s obligation ‘to assess in each individual case whether the documents whose disclosure is sought actually fall within the exceptions set out in Regulation No 1049/2001’, 24 it investigated whether that institution had correctly fulfilled that obligation.
Potem ko je izrecno opozorilo na obveznost Sveta, „da mora […] za vsak posamezen primer preveriti, ali dokumenti, katerih razkritje se zapro�a, dejansko spadajo med izjeme, na�tete v Uredbi �t. 1049/2001“, 24je preverilo, ali je navedena institucija pravilno izpolnila to obveznost.
that regulation, in so far as the regulation seeks to govern the exercise of a right which, due to its being enshrined in Article 255 EC by the Treaty of Amsterdam, has acquired the status of a fundamental right.
1049/2001, so ob veljavi slednje �e pomembnej�i glede na to, da je navedena uredba namenjena ureditvi izvr�evanja pravice, ki je bila z Amsterdamsko pogodbo uvedena v člen 225 ES in je s tem pridobila položaj temeljne pravice.
21It thus comes as no surprise that the caselaw has transposed them into the context of the application of Regulation No 1049/2001.
21Prav tako ni presenetljivo, da jih je sodna praksa prenesla na področje veljave Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
According to the Community judicature, as the purpose of that piece of legislation is to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents held by the institutions, the exceptions on the ground of confidentiality which are provided for must be interpreted and applied strictly.
Glede na to, da je namen tega besedila dati čim večji učinek pravici javnosti do dostopa do dokumentov institucij, bi se morale predvidene izjeme zaupnosti po mnenju sodnika Skupnosti razlagati in uporabljati ozko.
22 It follows that the examination required for the purpose of processing a request for access to documents must, first, be specific in nature because the mere fact that a document concerns an interest protected by an exception is not sufficient to justify application of that exception and, in addition, the institution to which the request is made must have previously assessed, having regard to the items of information which the document contains, whether access to the document was likely specifically and actually to undermine the protected interest, and the risk of a protected interest being undermined must be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.
22Iz tega sledi, da mora biti presoja, ki se zahteva za obravnavo pro�nje za dostop do dokumentov, najprej konkretna, kajti sama okoli�čina, da dokument zadeva interes, ki ga varuje izjema, naj ne bi zadostovala za upravičenje uporabe te izjeme; poleg tega mora zapro�ena institucija predhodno presoditi, ali lahko dostop do dokumenta konkretno in dejansko �kodi varovanemu interesu in ali je nevarnost �kode za varovani interes razumno predvidljiva in ne zgolj hipotetična.
The examination must also be individual in nature and be carried out in respect of each document requested because only such an examination can enable the institution to assess the possibility of granting the applicant partial access. 23
Presoja mora biti tudi posamična in se mora opraviti za vsak zapro�en dokument, ker lahko le taka presoja omogoči instituciji, da oceni možnost, da prosilcu dovoli delni dostop. 23