natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Statistics about stocks and flows of Euro banknotes
Statistični podatki o rezervah in kroženju evrobankovcev
1.1 The complainant contests the rejection by the European Central Bank (ECB) of his confirmatory application for access to statistics about stocks and flows of Euro banknotes.
1.1 Pritožnik ugovarja zavrnitvi njegove potrdilne prošnje s strani Evropske centralne banke (ECB) glede dostopa do statističnih podatkov o rezervah in kroženju evrobankovcev.
The complainant argues that none of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/1237 applies to the statistics to which he claims access.
Pritožnik utemeljuje, da se nobena izmed izjem iz člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/1237ne nanaša na statistične podatke, do katerih bi rad imel dostop.
1.2 The ECB argues that it has provided the complainant with the most recent information on aggregated volumes of Euro banknotes in circulation and in stock, broken down by denomination.
1.2 ECB se zagovarja, da je pritožniku posredovala najnovejše podatke o skupni količini evrobankovcev v obtoku in rezervah glede na apoene.
Disclosure of statistics about stocks and flows of Euro banknotes in the territories of different Euro area Member States could undermine the interests set out in Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/12, because it could jeopardise the security of both the storage of banknotes and their subsequent transfer between national central banks.
Razkritje statističnih podatkov o rezervah in kroženju evrobankovcev na ozemlju različnih držav članic evroobmočja bi lahko škodovalo interesom iz člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/12, ker bi lahko ogrozilo varovanje skladišč bankovcev in nadaljnji transfer bankovcev med nacionalnimi centralnimi bankami.
Furthermore, such information could undermine the security of the persons responsible for the stocks and/or involved in the transportation of banknotes.
Poleg tega bi lahko ti podatki ogrozili varnost oseb, odgovornih za rezerve in/ali sodelujočih pri prevozu bankovcev.
This reasoning also applies to information on past transports, since this kind of information may a ract significant criminal a ention.
To velja tudi za podatke o že izvršenih prevozih, saj bi lahko tovrstni podatki vzbudili pozornost morebitnih storilcev kaznivih dejanj.
In light of the above security concerns, the national central banks and other parties such as police and military forces have asked the ECB to keep such information confidential. dential.
Z vidika zgoraj omenjenih varnostnih razlogov so nacionalne centralne banke in druge udeležene strani, kot sta policija in vojska, zahtevali, da ECB obdrži take podatke v tajnosti.
Moreover, according to the ECB, information on stocks and flows of banknotes in different Member States could be misinterpreted, leading to a false assessment of the availability of certain banknote denominations.
Po mnenju ECB bi lahko poleg tega prišlo do napačnih razlag podatkov o rezervah in kroženju bankovcev v različnih državah članicah, zaradi katerih bi bila lahko napačno ocenjena razpoložljivost določenih apoenov bankovcev.
This could prompt the general public and retailers to hoard certain banknote denominations, thus leading to a shortage of such denominations thus creating, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Zaradi tega bi lahko javnost in trgovci na drobno začeli kopičiti določene apoene bankovcev, kar bi privedlo do pomanjkanja teh apoenov, s čimer bi se dejansko uresničila “samouresničujoča se napoved”.
This argument would also hold true were country-specific stock data to be published a er their actual availability, because certain trends could still be identified. ed.
Ta utemeljitev bi držala tudi v primeru, če bi podatke o rezervah posamezne države objavili šele potem, ko bi bili dejansko na razpolago, saj bi bilo še vedno mogoče iz njih razbrati določene trende.
Also according to the ECB, based on the past experience of Eurosystem national central banks, such information might worry the public unnecessarily and therefore lead to irrational behaviour.
ECB je prav tako menila, da bi glede na pretekle izkušnje nacionalnih centralnih bank evrosistema taki podatki lahko nepotrebno vznemirili javnost in zato povzročili nerazumno ravnanje.
1.3 In observations on the ECB’s opinion, the complainant clarifies that he seeks data on country-specific stocks; i.e. the value of Euro banknotes in circulation from time to time within the territory of each of the participating Member States, expressed either in absolute terms or in relative terms, as proportions of the aggregate value of Euro banknotes in circulation in the Euro area.
1.3 Pritožnik je v svojih pripombah na mnenje ECB pojasnil, da želi podatke o rezervah določenih držav, to je o vrednosti evrobankovcev v obtoku in sicer v določenih obdobjih na ozemlju vseh sodelujočih držav članic, izraženo absolutno ali relativno, v deležih skupne vrednosti evrobankovcev v obtoku na evroobmočju.
According to the complainant, the ECB is not entitled to rely on the exception concerning requests for confidentiality contained in the fi h indent of Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/12.
Pritožnik meni, da se ECB ne more sklicevati na izjemo glede zahtev za tajnost iz pete alinee člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/12.
As regards the issue of security, no information on transfers of Euro banknotes can be derived from data on country-specific stocks or variations in them.
Z vidika varnostnih razlogov iz podatkov o rezervah določene države ali razlikah med rezervami ni mogoče sklepati o podatkih o transferjih evrobankovcev.
If accepted, the ECB’s argument that such information might worry the public unnecessarily and therefore lead to irrational behaviour would substantially undermine the Declaration on the Right of Access to Information annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on European Union.
Če bi sprejeli utemeljitev ECB, da bi lahko tovrstni podatki nepotrebno vznemirili javnosti in zato povzročili nerazumno ravnanje, bi to lahko tehtno škodovalo Izjavi o pravici dostopa do informacij , priloženi sklepni listini Pogodbe o Evropski unij i.
1.4 The Ombudsman first notes that the complainant’s observations clarify the information that he wishes to obtain from the ECB.
1.4 Evropski varuh ugotavlja, da pritožnikove pripombe pojasnjujejo vrsto podatkov, ki jih želi pridobiti od ECB.
The Ombudsman considers, however, that the ECB’s interpretation of the complainant’s application was reasonable.
Vendar varuh meni, da je bila razlaga ECB pritožnikove prošnje sprejemljiva.
The Ombudsman points out that the complainant could make a new application to the ECB in accordance with Decision ECB/1998/12, specifying precisely the information that he wishes to obtain.
Ta sklep torej obravnava, ali je imela ECB pravico zavrniti posredovanje podatkov, za katere je mislila, da jih pritožnik zahteva.
Decision of the European Central Bank of 3 November 1998 (ECB/1998/12), concerning public access to documentation and the archives of the European Central Bank 1999 OJ L110/30.
Sklep Evropske centralne banke z dne 3. novembra 1998 (ECB/1998/12) o dostopu javnosti do dokumentacije in arhivov Evropske centralne banke, UL L 110/30, 1999.
Decisions following an inquiry support the ECB’s reliance on the exception for public security in the first indent38 of Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/12, not as a reference to its fi h indent39.
1.5 Evropski varuh razume sklicevanje ECB na zahteve za tajnost s strani nacionalnih centralnih bank, policije in vojske, saj je z njimi dokazovala svoje sklicevanje na izjeme glede javne varnosti iz prve alinee38 člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/12 in ne na sklicevanje na peto alineo39 tega sklepa.
The Ombudsman considers that the arguments advanced by the ECB concerning public security are reasonable and justify the ECB’s decision to refuse access to the information which it understood the complainant to be seeking.
Varuh meni, da so utemeljitve ECB glede javne varnosti sprejemljive in upravičujejo odločitev ECB o zavrnitvi dostopa do vrste podatkov, za katero je mislila, da jih pritožnik želi pridobiti.
1.6 As regards the ECB’s argument concerning the risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to shortage of certain banknote denominations, the Ombudsman first notes that Article 106 EC gives the ECB the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Community and that Article 12 (1) of the Statute of the ESCB and ECB provides that the Executive Board of the ECB shall implement monetary policy in accordance with the guidelines and decisions laid down by the Governing Council of the ECB.
1.6 Glede utemeljitve ECB o tveganju “samouresničujoče se napovedi”, ki bi povzročila pomanjkanje določenih apoenov bankovcev, Evropski varuh meni, da člen 106 Pogodbe ES daje ECB izključno pravico za odobritev izdajanja bankovcev znotraj Skupnosti. Člen 12(1) Statuta ESCB in ECB pa določa, da izvršilni odbor ECB izvaja monetarno politiko v skladu s smernicami in sklepi Sveta ECB.
The Ombudsman is aware that the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy is used in the literature of economics.
Varuh se zaveda, da se koncept “samouresničujoče se napovedi” uporablja v literaturi z gospodarskega področja.
The Ombudsman points out that in carrying out the above-mentioned responsibilities, the ECB is entitled to take into account economic analysis of the possible effects of self-fulfilling prophecies on monetary developments.
Varuh poudarja, da ima ECB pri izvajanju zgoraj omenjenih pristojnosti pravico upoštevati gospodarske analize možnih učinkov “samouresničujočih se napovedi” na razvoj na monetarnem področju.
The Ombudsman therefore considers that such analysis is also relevant to the exception for protection of the public interest contained in the first indent of Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/12.
Varuh zato meni, da se tovrstna analiza lahko upošteva pri izjemah glede varovanja javnega interesa iz prve alinee člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/12.
The Ombudsman does not accept, however, that the ECB is entitled to rely on the argument that information about country-specific stocks might worry the public unnecessarily and therefore lead to irrational behaviour.
Vendar se varuh ne strinja, da ima ECB pravico sklicevanja na utemeljitev, da bi lahko podatki o rezervah določene države nepotrebno vznemirili javnosti in povzročili nerazumno ravnanje. Varuh poudarja, da ECB nima nobenih dokazov, ki bi upravičili to utemeljitev.
The Ombudsman points out that the ECB off ers no evidence to substantiate this argument which, moreover, does not appear to relate to any of the exceptions contained in Article 4 of Decision ECB/1998/12.
Poleg tega ni razvidno, da bi se ta utemeljitev nanašala na izjeme iz člena 4 Sklepa ECB/1998/12.
1.7 For the reason given in 1.5 above, the Ombudsman considers that the ECB was entitled to refuse access to the information which it understood the complainant to be seeking.
1.7 Zaradi razloga iz 1.5 zgoraj Evropski varuh meni, da je ECB imela pravico zavrniti dostop do vrste podatkov, za katero je mislila, da jih pritožnik želi pridobiti.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in the ECB’s rejection of the complainant’s confirmatory application.
Evropski varuh zato ni ugotovil nepravilnosti pri ravnanju ECB glede zavrnitve pritožnikove potrdilne prošnje.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Central Bank.
Na podlagi preiskave Evropskega varuha glede ravnanja ECB v tem primeru ni mogoče ugotoviti nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Evropski varuh s tem zaključuje primer.
3.1.5 The European Court of Auditors
3.1.5 Evropsko računsko sodišče
COURT OF AUDITORS CORRECTS FAILURE TO APPLY RULES ON ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS
RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE POPRAVLJA NEUPORABO PREDPISOV O DOSTOPU DO DOKUMENTOV
Decision on complaint 1117/2003/GG against the European Court of Auditors
Sklep o pritožbi 1117/2003/GG zoper Evropsko računsko sodišče
In June 2003, the complainant, a UK citizen, wrote to Mr R., a member of the Court of Auditors, in order to ask for access to documents in relation to an audit carried out in 2001 in Niger.
Junij a 2003 je pritožnik, državljan Velike Britanije, pisal g. R., članu Računskega sodišča, in zaprosil za dostop do dokumentov v zvezi z revizijo, opravljeno leta 2001 v Nigru.
The complainant noted that his request was made on the basis of the “EU access to information regulation”.
Pritožnik je omenil, da je njegova zahteva utemeljena z “dostopom EU do informacijskih uredb”.
“the protection of the public interest, in particular public security, international relations, monetary and exchange rate stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations.”
“varovanje javnega interesa, zlasti javne varnosti, mednarodnih odnosov, monetarne stabilnosti in stabilnosti deviznih tečajev, sodnih postopkov, inšpekcij in preiskav.”
“the protection of confidentiality as requested by any natural or legal person who supplied any of the information contained in the document or as required by the law applicable to such person.”
“varovanje zaupnosti, če to zahteva fizična ali pravna oseba, ki je posredovala kakršne koli podatke iz dokumenta, ali če to zahteva za to osebo veljavna zakonodaja.”
According to Article 2 of the Decision, all applications are forwarded to the Director of the External Relations Department and Legal Service who decides on their admissibility.
V skladu s členom 2 tega sklepa se vse vloge posredujejo direktorju oddelka za zunanje odnose in pravne službe, ki odloči o njihovi dopustnosti.
Where appropriate, the applicant shall be asked to formulate the application in greater detail.
Kjer je to primerno, se od prosilca zahteva, da vlogo bolj podrobno sestavi.
The Court may refuse access on the basis of the criteria set out in Article 4 (3) of the Decision.
Sodišče lahko zavrne dostop na podlagi kriterijev, določenih v členu 4(3) navedenega sklepa.
Applicants shall be informed within one month of receipt of the application of the Court’s response to it.
Računsko sodišče mora prosilce o odgovoru obvestiti v roku enega meseca od prejema vloge.
According to Article 3 (1) of Decision No 18/97, all appeals shall be submi ed to the President of the Court of Auditors, and the applicant must be notified of the decision on the appeal within two months.
V skladu s členom 3(1) Sklepa št. 18/97 morajo biti vse pritožbe predložene predsedniku Računskega sodišča, prosilec pa mora biti v roku dveh mesecev obveščen o sklepu o pritožbi.
The decision must state the reasons for the rejection and inform the complainant of the channels of appeal open to him.
Sklep mora vsebovati razloge za zavrnitev in seznaniti pritožnika o pritožnih možnostih, ki so mu na voljo.
However, the sender pointed out that the Court’s rules prevented the la er from disclosing internal documents concerning audits.
Pošiljatelj je opozoril, da je pritožniku zaradi pravil Računskega sodišča preprečeno razkritje notranjih dokumentov, ki se nanašajo na revizijo.
In this context, reference was made to point 6 of the Communications Policies and Standards that the Court had adopted at its meeting on 25/26 September 2001 and that is worded as follows: “In order to protect the professional relationship between auditor and auditee, the Court cannot provide a greater level of specific information to the outside world than is provided in its adopted reports.”
V tej zvezi se je skliceval na točko 6 politik in standardov komunikacije, ki jih je sprejelo Računsko sodišče na sestanku 25./26. septembra 2001 in se glasi: “Da bi zaščitili profesionalen odnos med revizorjem in revidirancem, Računsko sodišče javnosti ne sme posredovati več specifičnih informacij , kot je določeno v sprejetih poročilih.” G.
Mr R. added that to the extent that the relevant audit formed the basis of Special Report No 2/2002 on the implementation of the food security policy in developing countries financed by the general budget of the European Union, information that could be of interest to the complainant was to be found on the Court’s website.
R. je dodal, da glede na to, da je ustrezna revizija oblikovala podlago za Posebno poročilo št. 2/2002 o izvajanju politike varne preskrbe s hrano v državah v razvoju, ki se financira iz splošnega proračuna Evropske unije, se informacij a, ki bi lahko bila zanimiva za pritožnika, najde na spletni strani Sodišča.
(1) The Court’s refusal to grant access to the relevant documents was in breach of the relevant rules, namely Regulation No 1049/2001 and Article 23 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
(1) Zavrnitev Računskega sodišča do dostopa do ustreznih dokumentov je v nasprotju s predpisi, ki urejajo to področje, konkretno z Uredbo št. 1049/2001 in členom 23 Kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev.
(2) There was a breach of Article 19 of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, since no information on how to appeal was provided.
(2) Kršen je bil člen 19 Kodeksa dobrega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev, ker ni bila podana informacij a o tem, kako se pritožiti.
The European Court of Auditors’ opinion
Mnenje Evropskega računskega sodišča
In its opinion, the Court noted that it was clear that the complainant’s request had not been treated in accordance with the procedures laid down in Decision No 18/97.
Računsko sodišče je v svojem mnenju navedlo, da je bilo jasno, da pritožnikova zahteva ni bila obravnavana v skladu s postopki, določenimi v Sklepu št. 18/97.
The President of the Court had therefore decided to contact the complainant again in order to invite him to provide the Court with a detailed indication of any additional information he may need, in order to enable the services of the Court to examine the request in accordance with the Court’s internal rules.
Predsednik Računskega sodišča se je zato odločil, da ponovno stopi v stik s pritožnikom in ga pozove, da Računskemu sodišču posreduje podrobno navedbo vseh morebiti potrebnih dodatnih informacijin s tem omogoči službam Računskega sodišča, da zadevo preučijo skladno z notranjimi pravili Računskega sodišča.
The Court submi ed a copy of its le er to the complainant dated 17 July 2003 in which it apologised for its first email reply of 17 June 2003.
Sodišče je predložilo kopij o svojega pisma pritožniku z dne 17. julij a 2003, v katerem se je opravičilo za prvi odgovor z dne 17. junij a 2003.
Failure to grant access to document and information on how to appeal
Zavrnitev dostopa do dokumentov in opustitev posredovanja informacij e o tem, kako se pritožiti
1.1 On 6 June 2003, the complainant, a UK citizen, wrote to Mr R., a member of the European Court of Auditors, in order to ask for access to documents in relation to an audit carried out in 2001
1.1 6. junij a 2003 je pritožnik, državljan Velike Britanije, pisal g. R., članu Računskega sodišča, in zaprosil za dostop do dokumentov v zvezi z revizijo, opravljeno leta 2001 v Nigru.
Decisions following an inquiry in Niger. By email of 17 June 2003 sent by Mrs L. on behalf of Mr R., the complainant was informed that an audit had indeed taken place in Niger in June 2001 but that the Court’s rules prevented the la er from disclosing internal documents concerning audits.
Sklepi preiskav navedel, da mu je Evropsko računsko sodišče po krivici zavrnilo dostop do zadevnih dokumentov in da ga ni obvestilo o tem, kako naj se pritoži proti sklepu, ki zavrača njegovo vlogo.
1.2 In its opinion, the European Court of Auditors noted that it was clear that the complainant’s request had not been treated in accordance with the procedures set out in Decision No 18/97 laying down internal rules for the treatment of applications for access to documents held by the Court of Auditors40.
1.2 Evropsko računsko sodišče je v svojem mnenju navedlo, da je bilo jasno, da se pritožnikova zahteva ni obravnavala v skladu s postopki, določenimi v Sklepu št. 18/97, ki določa notranja pravila za obravnavanje vlog za dostop do dokumentov, ki jih hrani Računsko sodišče40.
The President of the Court had therefore decided to contact the complainant again in order to invite him to provide the Court with a detailed indication of any additional information he may need, in order to enable the services of the Court to examine the request in accordance with the Court’s internal rules.
Predsednik sodišča se je zato odločil ponovno stopiti v stik s pritožnikom in ga pozvati, da Računskemu sodišču posreduje podrobno navedbo vseh morebiti potrebnih dodatnih informacijin s tem omogoči službam Računskega sodišča, da zadevo preučijo skladno z notranjimi pravili Računskega sodišča.
1.3 The Ombudsman considers that the Court of Auditors has thus taken adequate steps in response to the complaint.
1.3 Evropski varuh meni, da je Računsko sodišče na ta način ustrezno ukrepalo v odgovoru na pritožbo.
On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, and taking into account the steps taken by the institution a er it was informed of the complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the European Court of Auditors.
Na podlagi preiskav Evropskega varuha glede te pritožbe in upoštevanja ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela institucij a po tem, ko je bila obveščena o pritožbi, se zdi, da ni bilo nepravilnosti s strani Evropskega računskega sodišča.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
Evropski varuh zato primer zaključuje.
The complainant is of course free to lodge a new complaint if the Court should, a er having reexamined his application, refuse to grant access to the relevant document.
Pritožnik je seveda upravičen vložiti novo pritožbo, če bi Računsko sodišče po ponovni preučitvi njegove pritožbe zavrnilo dostop do ustreznega dokumenta.
ACCESS TO EUROPEAN CONVENTION AGENDAS AND MINUTES
DOSTOP DO DNEVNIH REDOV IN ZAPISNIKOV EVROPSKE KONVENCIJ E
Decision on complaint 1795/2002/IJH as it relates to the European Convention
Sklep o pritožbi 1795/2002/IJH, v zvezi z Evropsko konvencij o
In October 2002, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman on behalf of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) against the European Convention and the Council.
Oktobra 2002 je nevladna organizacij a za promocijo evropskega državljanstva (European Citizen Action Service - ECAS) na Evropskega varuha naslovila pritožbo zoper Evropsko konvencij o in Svet.
The present decision deals only with the complaint against the Convention.
Ta sklep obravnava samo pritožbo zoper Konvencijo.
The Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint against the Council was dealt with in a separate decision (see section 3.1.2).
Preiskava Evropskega varuha glede pritožbe zoper Svet je bila obravnavana v posebnem sklepu (glej oddelek 3.1.2).
The complainant applied to the Council for access to the agendas and minutes of the Praesidium of the European Convention.
Pritožnik se je za dostop do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva Evropske konvencij e obrnil na Svet.
In July 2002, the Council replied to the complainant stating, amongst other things, that the European Convention is a body distinct from the Council and that the Council’s General Secretariat had forwarded the applicant’s request to the Secretariat of the Convention.
Julij a 2002 je Svet pritožniku odgovoril in med drugim pojasnil, da je Evropska konvencij a organ, ki je ločen od Sveta in da je generalni sekretariat Sveta posredoval njegovo zahtevo sekretariatu Konvencije. e.
The complainant then wrote to the Secretary General of the Convention, Sir John KERR, referring to the above-mentioned request to the Council for access to the agendas and minutes of the Praesidium.
Pritožnik je svojo pritožbo (nevladne organizacije) varuhu izrazil v obliki zahtev po preiskavi, potrditvi ali ugotovitvi določenih zadev.
The Convention recognises that in order to do its job the Praesidium has to enjoy a degree of ex ante confidentiality; its product is totally public but the preparatory process has to be reasonably private.”
Pritožnik je tudi razložil, da je razlog za zahtevo po dostopu do dnevnih redov in zapisnikov predsedstva, da bi NVO (nevladne organizacije) dobile vnaprej ustrezno obvestilo o tem, kaj se pripravlja v Konvencij i.
In summary, the complaint seems to contain the following allegation against the European Convention:
Pritožba torej vsebuje naslednjo navedbo zoper Evropsko konvencijo: o: