natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
21 — In respect of that ‘promotion’ of the right of access to documents, I refer to the demonstration in my Opinion in Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission and Others (points 37 to 40), which is still pending before the Court.
21 – V zvezi s tem „napredovanjem“ pravice dostopa do dokumentov si dovolim opozoriti na prikaz, ki sem ga naredil v sklepnih predlogih z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Švedska proti Komisiji in drugim (C-64/05 P, točke od 37 do 40), v kateri �e ni bilo odločeno.
For that purpose, the Court of First Instance first satisfied itself that the document requested was indeed a legal opinion and found that it was an ‘opinion of the Council’s legal service concerning a proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States’.
V ta namen se je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej prepričalo, da je zapro�en dokument res pravno mnenje, in je ugotovilo, da je „mnenje pravne službe Sveta, ki zadeva predlog direktive Sveta o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil v državah članicah“.
25However, the Court of First Instance did not limit the requirement of a case-by-case examination to that.
25 Vendar se Sodi�če ni omejilo na zahtevo po presoji v vsakem primeru posebej.
It also investigated whether ‘the Council has made an error of assessment in finding … that the disclosure of the legal opinion in question would undermine the protection to which that type of document may be entitled’ because ‘the fact that the document in question is a legal opinion cannot, of itself, justify application of the exception relied upon’.
Preverilo je tudi, ali „Svet v tem primeru […] ni zmotno presodil, da bi razkritje spornega pravnega mnenja oslabilo upravičeno varstvo tovrstnega dokumenta“, saj „[t]o, da je sporni dokument pravno mnenje, samo po sebi ne upravičuje uporabe omenjene izjeme“.
26In addition, it was only after noting that the Council had finally disclosed the introductory paragraph of the legal opinion in question that the Court of First Instance rejected the complaint that the Council had not considered the content of the opinion for the purpose of giving a decision on the request for access in question.
26Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje �ele po ugotovitvi, da je Svet nazadnje razkril uvodni odstavek spornega pravnega mnenja, zavrnilo očitek, v skladu s katerim naj Svet ne bi presodil njegove vsebine, da bi odločil o sporni pro�nji za dostop.
22 — See in particular Sison v Council, paragraphs 61 to 63.
23 – V zvezi s to obveznostjo konkretne in posamične presoje glej nazadnje zgoraj navedeno sodbo API proti Komisiji, točke od 54 do 56; prej glej sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. aprila 2005 v zadevi Verein für Konsumenteni -nformation proti Komisiji (T-2/03, ZOdl., str.
23 — For a restatement of that obligation to make a specific and individual assessment, see most recently API v Commission, paragraphs 54 to 56; see, previously, Case T-2/03 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Commission [2005] ECR II-1121, paragraphs 69 to 74; Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission [2006] ECR II-5131, paragraphs 77 to 79; and Franchet and Byk v Commission, paragraphs 105 and 115 to 117.
II-1121, točke od 69 do 74); z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji (T-237/02, ZOdl., str. II-5131, točke od 77 do 79) in zgoraj navedeno Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji, točke 105 in od 115 do 117.
24 — Paragraph 69 of the judgment under appeal.25 — Paragraph 70 of the judgment under appeal.26 — Paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment under appeal.
24 – Točka 69 izpodbijane sodbe.25 – Točka 70 izpodbijane sodbe.26 – Točki 71 in 72 izpodbijane sodbe.
28 However, it is apparent from the caselaw that a general statement of reasons referring to a category of documents is acceptable in cases where it proves impossible to give specific reasons justifying the refusal of access to a document without disclosing the content of the document or an essential aspect of it and, accordingly, by undermining the interest which the exception on the ground of confidentiality is designed to protect, depriving the exception of its very purpose.
28Toda iz sodne prakse izhaja, da je splo�na obrazložitev, ki se nana�a na določeno vrsto dokumentov, dopustna, če posebnih razlogov, ki upravičujejo zavrnitev dostopa do dokumenta, ni mogoče navesti, ne da bi se pri tem razkrila njegova vsebina ali kak�en bistven podatek in tako povzročila �koda interesu, ki ga ima izjema zaupnosti namen varovati, s čimer bi se izjemi odvzel bistveni cilj. 29M.
It is true that the Court of First Instance expressly acknowledged that the considerations set out by the Council to justify the refusal of access constituted reasoning applicable to all the Council’s legal advice on legislative acts and not specifically to the opinion in question.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je res izrecno priznalo, da so preudarki, ki jih je navedel Svet, da bi upravičil zavrnitev dostopa, obrazložitev, ki se nana�a na celotno pravno mnenje Sveta v zvezi z zakonodajnimi akti in ne posebej na sporno mnenje.
It nevertheless found that the generality of the reasoning was justified in the present case ‘by the fact that giving additional information, making particular reference to the contents of the legal opinion in question, would deprive the exception relied upon of its [purpose]’. 30
Kljub temu pa je ocenilo, da je bila splo�na obrazložitev v tem primeru upravičena „z dejstvom, da bi predložitev dodatnih informacij, na katere se vsebina spornega pravnega mnenja �e posebej sklicuje, sklicevani izjemi odvzela njen namen“. 30
The response to be given to an application for access must be assessed ‘on the basis of the actual information contained in the documents’ and not by reference to categories of documents.
Presoja, ki jo je treba opraviti v zvezi s pro�njo za dostop, se mora izvesti „glede na konkretne podatke, ki jih dokumenti vsebujejo“ in ne glede na vrsto dokumentov.
Thus, it is not because a document is an opinion of the Council’s legal service relating to draft legislation or because it is headed ‘legal opinion’ that it must automatically enjoy the protection of the confidentiality of legal advice which is guaranteed by the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Torej dokument ni avtomatično upravičen do zaupnosti pravnih mnenj iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, ker je mnenje pravne službe sveta, ki se nana�a na predlog zakonodaje ali ker je naslovljen kot „pravni nasvet [pravno mnenje]“.
Going beyond its drafter and its name, it is necessary to ensure that it does contain a legal opinion.
Ne glede na njegovega avtorja ali imenovanje se je treba prepričati, da res vsebuje pravno mnenje.
If that is indeed the case, it is also important to draw a distinction between the arguments which, in the opinion, constitute general legal considerations and indicate its subject-matter, and those which actually express the opinion of the legal service on the legality of the draft legislation.
Če ga, je pomembno v mnenju razlikovati tudi med splo�nimi pravnimi preudarki, ki označujejo njegov predmet, in tistimi, ki res izražajo mnenje pravne službe o zakonitosti predloga zakonodaje.
Given the requirement to accommodate the possibility of partial access, the former must be disclosed, and the Court of First Instance satisfied itself that this had been done by pointing out that the Council had finally communicated to Mr Turco the introductory paragraph which stated that the opinion in question contained the advice of the Council’s legal service on the question of the Community’s powers regarding access of third-country nationals to the labour market. 27
Zaradi obveznosti, da se ohrani omejen dostop, morajo bili prvi zgoraj navedeni preudarki razkriti, o čemer se je Sodi�če prve stopnje prepričalo, s tem da je poudarilo, da je Svet nazadnje M. Turcu sporočil uvodni odstavek, v katerem je bilo navedeno, da je sporno mnenje vsebovalo mnenja pravne službe Sveta o vpra�anju pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju dostopa državljanov tretjih držav na trg delovne sile.
(b) The limits of a case-by-case examination
27 b) Omejitve presoje v vsakem primeru posebej
The approach of the Court of First Instance must also be properly understood.
Ravnanje Sodi�ča prve stopnje je treba pravilno razumeti. Splo�na obrazložitev
It is true that not only must a specific and individual assessment be carried out, but also that compliance with that obligation must be apparent from the grounds of the decision to refuse access.
Res je, da ni treba opraviti le konkretne in posamične presoje, temveč mora spo�tovanje te obveznosti izhajati tudi iz obrazložitve odločbe o zavrnitvi.
The statement of reasons given by the institution to justify a refusal of access cannot thus as a rule be limited to general assessments in respect of the nature or the type of documents of which the document
Obrazložitev, ki jo je podala institucija, da bi upravičila zavrnitev dostopa, se torej ne bi smela omejiti na splo�ne ocene o značilnostih in vrsti dokumentov, med katere spada zapro�eni dokument, temveč mora temeljiti na podatkih,
28 — See inter alia JT’s Corporation v Commission, paragraphs 46 and 65; Franchet and Byk v Commission, paragraph 130; Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, paragraphs 77 and 80 to 83, and API v Commission, paragraphs 66 to 68.
28 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbe JT’s Corporation proti Komisiji, točki 46 in 65, Franchet in Byk proti Komisiji, točka 130, z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji, točki 77 in od 80 do 83, in API proti Komisiji, točke od 66 do 68.
29 — See inter alia Sison v Council, paragraph 83, and API v Commission, paragraph 67.
29 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Sison proti Svetu, točka 83, in API proti Komisiji, točka 67.
27 — See paragraph 75 of the judgment under appeal.
27 – Glej točko 75 izpodbijane sodbe.
30 — Paragraph 74 of the judgment under appeal.
30 – Točka 74 izpodbijane sodbe.
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL years later, had adopted an exception on the ground of confidentiality in respect of opinions of the legal services of the institutions concerning draft legislation on the ground that ‘were documents of that nature to be disclosed, the discussions and exchange of views within the institutions on the legality and scope of the legal measure to be adopted would be made public and hence, …, the Council might lose all interest in requesting the Legal Services for written opinions’; on the ground in other words ‘that disclosure of those documents could give rise to uncertainty with regard to the legality of Community measures and have a negative effect on the functioning of the Community institutions’.
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU IN DRUGIM s predlogi zakonodaje, ker „bi razkritje takih dokumentov imelo za posledico, da bi razprava in izmenjava notranjih mnenj institucije glede zakonitosti in področja uporabe pravnih aktov, ki naj se sprejmejo, postali javni in bi torej […] privedlo do tega, da bi institucija izgubila vsakr�en interes, da pravne službe zaprosi za pisno mnenje“; drugače povedano, „ker bi razkritje teh dokumentov lahko ustvarilo negotovost glede zakonitosti aktov Skupnosti in bi lahko imelo negativne posledice na delovanje institucij Skupnosti“.
33Thereafter, the Community judicature had also justified that exception by ‘public policy, which requires that the institutions can receive the advice of their legal service, given in full independence’.
33To izjemo je upravičilo tudi z „javnim interesom, v skladu s katerim imajo institucije pravico do neodvisnih mnenj njihovih pravnih služb“. 34 Opozoril sem tudi, da je zakonodajalec potrdil ta sodni pristop v Uredbi �t. 1049/2001.
The generality of the statement of reasons for the refusal of access given by the Council in the present case is also accounted for because the requirement for a specific and individual examination of applications for access to legal advice cannot be without limits.
zavrnitve dostopa, ki jo je v tej zadevi dal Svet, je sprejemljiva tudi, ker je zahteva po posamični in konkretni presoji pro�enj za dostop do pravnih mnenj omejena. Za vse, kar v zapro�enem dokumentu izraža mnenje pravne službe o zakonitosti predloga zakonodaje, torej za vse, kar je pravno mnenje v pravem pomenu besede, načeloma velja člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
Nothing but the legal advice, but all the legal advice, is covered by that provision.
Ta določba se ne nana�a na nič drugega kot na pravno mnenje, a na pravno mnenje v celoti.
A case-by-case examination is thus designed only to establish to what extent the document requested is within the scope of the exception on the ground of confidentiality provided for in favour of legal advice, that is to say to identify that, in the document, which expresses the legal advice.
Presoja v vsakem primeru posebej se torej nana�a le na ugotovitev, v kolik�nem obsegu se izjema zaupnosti, ki velja za pravna mnenja, nana�a na zapro�en dokument, torej na ugotovitev, kaj v dokumentu izraža pravno mnenje. Člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t.
The second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 established a general presumption of confidentiality in respect of the legal advice given by the legal services of the institutions on draft legislation, precisely for the reasons put forward by the Council in the present case to justify its decision refusing access to the legal opinion requested.
1049/2001 je v bistvu uvedel splo�no domnevo zaupnosti pravnih mnenj, ki jih pravne službe institucij izdelajo v zvezi s predlogi zakonodaje, predvsem iz razlogov, ki jih je Svet navedel v obrazložitvi svoje odločitve, da v obravnavanem primeru zavrne dostop do zapro�enega pravnega mnenja.
A principle of nondisclosure of legal advice was thus laid down, which covers inter alia all the legal assessments given by the legal services of the institutions in respect of draft legislation.
Tako je bilo določeno načelo nerazkritja pravnih mnenj, ki zajema predvsem vse pravne ocene, ki jih izdajo pravne službe institucij v zvezi s predlogi zakonodaje.
Even though some Member States, such as the Kingdom of Sweden, have provided for the opposite approach in their national legislation, that principle of nondisclosure is the result of a political choice on the part of the Community legislature which has let itself be convinced by the reasons pointed out above.
Čeprav so nekatere države članice, kot na primer Kraljevina Švedska, v svojih pravnih redih sprejele obraten pristop, je to načelo posledica politične izbire zakonodajalca Skupnosti, ki se je pustil prepričati iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov.
A short historical summary of that provision is sufficient to demonstrate that.
Za potrditev tega zadostuje, če se na kratko spomnimo zgodovine te določbe.
Advocate General Jacobs had already suggested that an opinion given by the Council’s legal service may not, without the express authorisation of the Council, be invoked by a party before the Court because its disclosure ‘would obviously be prejudicial to the public interest in the provision of independent legal advice’.
Že generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je predlagal, da se stranka pred Sodi�čem ne more sklicevati na mnenje pravne službe Sveta brez njenega izrecnega dovoljenja, saj bi to razkritje „očitno �kodilo javnemu interesu, da je pravno mnenje neodvisno“.
31 As I have already mentioned, 32 the Community judicature itself, less than three
31 Kot sem že navedel 32, je sodi�če Skupnosti manj kot tri leta kasneje določilo izjemo zaupnosti za mnenja pravnih služb institucij v zvezi
33 — See the order in Carlsen and Others v Council, paragraph 46.
33 – Glej zgoraj navedeni sklep Carlsen in drugi proti Svetu, točka 46.
31 — Opinion in Case C-350/92 Spain v Council [1995] ECR I-1985, I-1988, point 35.
31 – Sklepni predlogi v zadevi Španija proti Svetu (sodba z dne 13. julija 1995, C-350/92, Recueil, str. I-1985, točka 35).
32 — See above, point 26 of the Opinion.
32 – Zgoraj v točki 26 sklepnih predlogov.
The interest protected by the exception on the ground of confidentiality which is provided for in respect of legal advice justifies as a general rule the secrecy of all the legal opinions of the legal services of the institutions in respect of draft legislation.
Interes, ki ga varuje izjema zaupnosti, ki velja za pravna mnenja, v bistvu upravičuje tajnost vseh pravnih mnenj pravnih služb institucij v zvezi s predlogi zakonodaje.
Access to any of those opinions is capable of specifically and actually undermining the ability of an institution to get an opinion from its legal service which is frank, objective, comprehensive and, therefore, of use to the institution for the purpose of assessing the legality of a piece of legislation.
Dostop do katerega koli od teh mnenj lahko konkretno in dejansko �kodi možnosti institucije, da od svoje pravne službe prejme odkrito, objektivno, popolno mnenje, ki kot tako koristi instituciji pri oceni zakonitosti zakonodajnega besedila.
The disclosure of such an opinion would mean that the legal service would display reserve and caution in drafting it, so as not to affect the institution’s scope for decisions.
Razkritje takega mnenja bi lahko privedlo pravno službo do zadržanosti in previdnosti pri pripravi mnenja, da ne bi vplivala na sposobnost odločanja te institucije.
Its usefulness to the institution would be appreciably weakened.
Uporabnost, ki bi jo to mnenje imelo za institucijo, bi bila občutno zmanj�ana.
What is more, it is to be feared that the possibility of its legal opinions being disclosed may cause a legal service henceforth to express the main points only orally, which would reduce transparency even more than does the application of the principle of nondisclosure of legal advice.
Poleg tega bi se bilo treba bati, da ne bi morebitno razkritje njenih pravnih mnenj pravno službo privedlo do tega, da v prihodnje bistvo izrazi zgolj ustno, kar bi �e dodatno oslabilo preglednost in uporabo načela nerazkritja pravnih mnenj.
It should be remembered that the best can sometimes be the enemy of the good.
Poudariti je treba, da je „bolje“ včasih lahko slab�e kot „dobro“.
Furthermore, where the institution chose not to follow a negative opinion from its legal service, the disclosure of that opinion could, in the event of a subsequent challenge before the courts, harm the institution’s capacity to defend its action, particularly as it would be represented by its legal service.
Sicer pa, kadar bi institucija izbrala, da ne sledi negativnemu mnenju svoje pravne službe, bi razkritje slednjega v primeru kasnej�ega spora lahko �kodilo zmožnosti institucije, da svoje ravnanje zagovarja pred sodi�čem, predvsem ker bi jo tam zastopala njena pravna služba.
It would in particular be contrary to the interest protected to seek to distinguish between ‘positive’ or ‘inoffensive’ opinions, which should be disclosed, and ‘negative’ or ‘sensitive’ opinions, which should remain confidential.
razlikovanje med „pozitivnimi“ ali „ne�kodljivimi“ mnenji, ki bi jih bilo treba razkriti, ter „negativnimi“ ali „občutljivimi“ mnenji, ki bi morala ostati zaupna, bi bilo �e posebej v nasprotju z varovanim interesom.
As the Council correctly contended, a refusal to disclose would indicate that it was a negative opinion and would bring with it all the harmful effects already mentioned and which the exception on the ground of confidentiality specifically seeks to avoid.
Kot je pravilno ugovarjal Svet, bi zavrnitev dostopa razkrila, da gre za negativno mnenje, kar bi za seboj potegnilo vse že navedene negativne posledice, ki se jim izjema zaupnosti želi izrecno izogniti.
Nor is it possible to follow the Swedish Government, according to which it is necessary to take account of the stage reached in the deliberations on a legislative act.
Prav tako se ni mogoče strinjati s �vedsko vlado, po mnenju katere bi bilo treba upo�tevati, v kateri fazi je razprava o zakonodajnem aktu.
In that regard also, the Council correctly contended that the legality of a legislative act can be challenged at any time by means of a reference for a preliminary ruling or a plea of illegality.
Tudi v zvezi s tem je Svet pravilno ugovarjal, da se zakonitost zakonodajnega akta lahko izpodbija s predložitvijo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje ali z ugovorom nezakonitosti.
On that point I can only completely agree with the finding of the Court of First Instance according to which ‘given the special nature of opinions of the Legal Services, it would not appear that those documents are bound, over the years, to lose their confidential character’.
V zvezi s tem lahko le sprejmemo stali�če Sodi�ča prve stopnje, v skladu s katerim „se glede na posebno naravo mnenj pravnih služb ne zdi, da bi ti dokumenti z leti izgubili lastnost zaupnosti, kot je to veljalo prej“.
It added that ‘their disclosure could still be detrimental to the public interest in the stability of the Community legal order and the proper functioning of the Community institutions, inasmuch as time is not likely to alter the reasons … justifying such an exception to the right of access’.
V bistvu je treba dodati, da „bi njihovo razkritje lahko vedno �kodilo javnim interesom stabilnosti pravnega reda skupnosti ter dobrega delovanja institucij Skupnosti, kolikor se ne zdi verjetno, da bi čas spremenil razloge […], ki upravičujejo tako izjemo od pravice do dostopa“.
35Considerations relating to the passage of time cannot thus make it possible to challenge effectively the fact that Regulation No 1049/2001 laid down a principle of nondisclosure in respect of all legal advice.
35Preudarki, ki se nana�ajo na potek časa, tako ne bi omogočili učinkovitega spodbijanja dejstva, da je Uredba �t. 1049/2001 določila načelo nerazkritja vseh pravnih mnenj.
That does not mean, however, that those considerations have no bearing but, as will be seen, the time which has passed can be taken into account only at the stage of assessing an overriding public interest which would justify the disclosure of a legal opinion by
Vendar to ne pomeni, da tako preudarki nimajo posledic, temveč, kot se bo pokazalo, se pretekli čas lahko upo�teva le ob ugotavljanju prevladujočega javnega interesa, ki upravičuje razkritje
35 — Carlsen and Others v Council, paragraph 50.
35 – Zgoraj navedeni sklep Carlsen in drugi proti Svetu, točka 50.
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL way of derogation from the confidentiality which it enjoys as a general rule.
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU IN DRUGIM pravnega mnenja, kljub zaupnosti, ki jo načeloma uživa.
but also on the nature of the information it contains. For example, it is not because a document relates to an inspection or investigation that its disclosure would automatically endanger the completion of that action and thus undermine the protection of the purpose of inspections or investigations.
čanje in povzročena �koda varstvu in�pekcije ali preiskave samo zato, ker se dokument nana�a na in�pekcijo ali preiskavo.
38Likewise, the fact that a document contains information or negative evaluations about the political situation or the protection of human rights in a third-country does not necessarily mean that its disclosure would affect the Union’s international relations. 39
38Prav tako dejstvo, da dokument vsebuje informacije ali negativne ocene o političnih razmerah ali varstvu človekovih pravic v tretji državi, ne pomeni nujno, da bi njegovo razkritje vplivalo na mednarodne odnose Unije. 39
It is apparent that it is in the very nature of the public interest which underlies the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to protect the confidentiality of all legal opinions given in respect of draft legislation.
Očitno je, da je celo v javnem interesu, na katerem temelji izjema iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, da se varuje zaupnost vseh pravnih mnenj, ki so izdana v vezi s predlogi zakonodaje.