natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
See the Council's annual report on access to documents – 2004, pp. 27-29.
Glej letno poro_13ilo Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2004, str. 27–29.
See the above-mentioned annual report, p. 27.
Glej zgoraj navedeno letno poro_13ilo, str. 27.
Following this complaint, the Council essentially took the position that the matter was of a political and constitutional rather than of an administrative nature.
Po tej prito_11bi je Svet v osnovi zavzel stali_9_13e, da je to vpra_9anje politi_13nega in ustavnega namesto upravnega zna_13aja.
Therefore, it had reservations whether it constituted "maladministration" to begin with.
Zato je izrazil pomisleke, ali je sploh _9lo za "nepravilnosti".
The Council's Rules of Procedure are, in its view, fully in conformity with the Treaties.
Poslovnik Sveta je po njegovem mnenju popolnoma v skladu s Pogodbami.
Moreover the Council maintained throughout the procedure that it had correctly applied the rules in force, which fact was not contested by the complainants.
Poleg tega je Svet v celotnem postopku zatrjeval, da je veljavna pravila uporabljal pravilno, _13esar prito_11niki niso izpodbijali.
21 drawn up by its Committee on Petitions, in which it supported the Ombudsman's recommendations
21 pripravil Odbor za peticije, sprejel resolucijo, v kateri je podprl varuhova priporo_13ila
This complaint, which was already mentioned in the Annual Report covering the year 200422, concerns alleged refused access to a document concerning the application of the principle "ne bis in idem" in competition law.
, zadeva domnevno zavrnjen dostop do dokumenta, ki se nana_9a na uporabo na_13ela ne bis in idem v konkuren_13nem pravu. Varuh _13lovekovih pravic je 4. julija 2006 primer zaklju_13il, ne da bi na_9el kakr_9ne koli nepravilnosti.
The Ombudsman considered that the Council's position as reflected in its decision of 8 July 2004 on the initial request for access to documents and in its decision of 13 July 2004 on the confirmatory request for access to documents appeared to be reasonable.
Po njegovem mnenju je stali_9_13e Sveta, kakor se odra_11a v njegovi odlo_13itvi z dne 8. julija 2004 o za_13etni pro_9nji za dostop do dokumentov in odlo_13itvi z dne 13. julija 2004 o potrdilni pro_9nji za dostop do dokumentov, razumno.
This complaint relates to an alleged failure by the Council to grant access to any documents in its possession concerning the negotiation and signature of the EU Status of Forces Agreement of
Ta prito_11ba se nana_9a na domnevno neizpolnjevanje obveznosti Sveta, da odobri dostop do dokumentov, s katerimi razpolaga in ki zadevajo pogajanja in podpis Sporazuma EU o statusu sil z dne
, including documents relating to the organisation of the negotiations.
, vklju_13no z dokumenti v zvezi z organizacijo pogajanj.
In its reply of 21 March 2005 to the initial application, the General Secretariat of the Council had informed the complainant that two kinds of preparatory documents existed: (a) a number of documents already available on the Council's website as part of the Council's register of documents; and (b) SN documents 4438/01, 4438/1/01 REV 1, 4438/4/01 REV 4 and 4438/5/01 REV 5.
Generalni sekretariat Sveta je v odgovoru na za_13etno pro_9njo z dne 21. marca 2005 prito_11nika obvestil, da obstajata dve vrsti pripravljalnih dokumentov: (a) _9tevilni dokumenti, ki so _11e dostopni na spletni strani Sveta v okviru registra dokumentov Sveta; ter (b) dokumenti SN 4438/01, 4438/1/01 REV 1, 4438/4/01 REV 4 in 4438/5/01 REV 5.
As regards the second group of documents, the General Secretariat granted only partial access, withholding those parts of the documents which contained legal advice.
Glede druge skupine dokumentov je generalni sekretariat odobril le delni dostop, ni pa razkril tistih delov dokumentov, ki vsebujejo pravne nasvete.
Cf. the European Parliament resolution on the Special Report from the European Ombudsman following the draft recommendation to the Council of the European Union in complaint 2395/2003/GG concerning the openness of the meetings of the Council when acting in its legislative capacity (2005/2243(INI)) (T6-0121/2006) and the own initiative report (A6-0056/2006 ) tabled by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions on 3 March 2006.
Glej resolucijo Evropskega parlamenta o Posebnem poro_13ilu Evropskega varuha _13lovekovih pravic v skladu z osnutkom priporo_13ila Svetu Evropske unije v prito_11bi 2395/2003/GG glede odprtosti zasedanj Sveta v vlogi zakonodajnega organa (2005/2243(INI)) (T6 0121/2006) in poro_13ilo na lastno pobudo (A6-0056/2006 ), ki ga je predlo_11il Odbor Evropskega parlamenta za peticije 3. marca 2006.
See the Council's annual report on access to documents – 2004, p. 29. OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 6.
Glej letno poro_13ilo Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2004, str. 29. UL C 321, 31.12.2003, str. 6.
On 24 March 2005 the complainant submitted a confirmatory application to the Council, arguing that in view of the Agreement's scope and of the fact that the drafting process had taken over two years to complete, it was to be presumed that the Council held more than just those four documents.
Prito_11nik je 24. marca 2005 Svetu predlo_11il potrdilno pro_9njo, v kateri je trdil, da je glede na obseg Sporazuma in dejstvo, da je postopek izdelave osnutka sporazuma trajal ve_13 kot dve leti, mo_13 domnevati, da je Svet razpolagal z ve_13 kot le temi _9tirimi dokumenti.
Moreover, the very numbering of these documents suggested that other relevant documents existed.
Pole tega je bilo na podlagi samega _9tevil_13enja teh dokumentov mogo_13e sklepati, da so obstajali tudi drugi ustrezni dokumenti.
In its reply to the applicant of 11 May 2005, the Council declared that no further documents concerning the negotiation and signature of the EU SOFA had been identified, and that the gap in the numbering sequence was due to the fact that SN documents 4438/2/01 REV 2 and 4438/3/01 REV 3 had been declared void and annulled during production.
V odgovoru prosilcu z dne 11. maja 2005 je Svet izjavil, da v zvezi s pogajanji in podpisom Sporazuma EU SOFA ni bilo opredeljenih nobenih drugih dokumentov ter da manjkajo_13e _9tevilke pojasnjuje dejstvo, da sta bila dokumenta SN 4438/2/01 REV 2 in 4438/3/01 REV 3 razgla_9ena za ni_13na in razveljavljena _11e v postopku izdelave.
In his application of 10 March 2005, the complainant had also asked for a full and complete list of all those documents to which the Council might decide to refuse access, including "sensitive documents" within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
V pro_9nji z dne 10. marca 2005 je prito_11nik zaprosil tudi za celoten in popoln seznam vseh tistih dokumentov, do katerih bi Svet morda lahko zavrnil dostop, vklju_13no z "dokumenti ob_13utljive narave" v smislu _13lena 9 Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001.
Given that this issue had not been addressed by the General Secretariat in its initial reply to the complainant, the latter repeated this request in his confirmatory application.
Glede na to, da generalni sekretariat v svojem za_13etnem odgovoru prito_11niku tega vpra_9anja ni obravnaval, je prito_11nik svojo zahtevo ponovil v potrdilni pro_9nji.
In its reply of 11 May 2005, the Council pointed out that, in conformity with Article 9 of the Regulation, the institution was neither obliged to divulge any detail concerning a sensitive document nor to release it to the public, unless its originator decided otherwise.
V odgovoru z dne 11. maja 2005 je Svet poudaril, da v skladu s _13lenom 9 Uredbe institucija ni zavezana niti k razkritju kakr_9nih koli podrobnosti v zvezi z dokumenti ob_13utljive narave niti k objavi tak_9nih dokumentov, razen _13e se avtor ne odlo_13i druga_13e.
According to the Council, the only obligation for the institution in this context was to indicate at the end of each calendar year the total number of documents classified as "Confidential", "Secret" and "Top Secret" during the year, in conformity with Article 17(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Po mnenju Sveta je edina obveznost institucije v tem okviru na koncu vsakega koledarskega leta navesti celotno _9tevilo dokumentov, ki so bili v tem letu ozna_13eni z "Confidential", "Secret" in "Top Secret", v skladu s _13lenom 17(1) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman of 17 May 2005, the complainant alleged that by failing either to grant total or partial access to all the documents requested, or to give reasons for refusing access to these documents, the Council had not fully complied with its obligations under Regulation No 1049/2001.
V prito_11bi varuhu _13lovekovih pravic z dne 17. maja 2005 je prito_11nik navedel, da Svet ni v celoti izpolnil svojih obveznosti iz Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001, saj ni niti odobril popolnega ali delnega dostopa do vseh zahtevanih dokumentov niti ni podal razlogov za zavrnitev dostopa do teh dokumentov.
He moreover alleged that the Council had failed to consider whether it had to give total or partial access to any sensitive documents, and to give reasons why it had decided to deny access to any such documents.
Poleg tega je trdil, da Svet ni preu_13il, ali mora odobriti popoln ali delen dostop do dokumentov ob_13utljive narave, niti ni utemeljil, zakaj se je odlo_13il zavrniti dostop do vseh teh dokumentov.
By not addressing the specific arguments submitted to it, the Council had acted in bad faith and had failed to give proper consideration to the initial request and the confirmatory application.
Ker Svet ni obravnaval specifi_13nih argumentov, ki so mu bili predlo_11eni, je ravnal v slabi veri in ni ustrezno preu_13il niti za_13etne niti potrdilne pro_9nje.
In its opinion on this complaint of 27 July 2005, the Council pointed out that under the current rules, all texts submitted to the Council or to one of its preparatory bodies which (a) are to serve as a basis for deliberations, (b) influence the decisionmaking process, or (c) reflect the progress made on a given subject, must be distributed as "standard" ("ST") documents.
Svet je v svojem mnenju o tej prito_11bi z dne 27. julija 2005 opozoril, da se morajo v skladu z veljavnimi pravili vsi dokumenti, predlo_11eni Svetu ali njegovim pripravljalnim telesom, ki (a) naj bi slu_11ili kot podlaga za razprave, (b) vplivajo na postopek odlo_13anja ali (c) odra_11ajo napredek, dose_11en glede dolo_13ene teme, razdeliti kot "standardni" ("ST") dokumenti.
Consequently, they are automatically tracked in the Council's document production system and (unless they are not registered in accordance with Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001) will be listed automatically on the Council's Register.
Zato se avtomati_13no sledijo v sistemu priprave dokumentov Sveta in se (razen _13e niso registrirani v skladu s _13lenom 9(3) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001) avtomati_13no vpi_9ejo v register Sveta.
Under the current rules, so-called "unnumbered" ("SN") documents may thus no longer be used for such purposes.
V skladu z veljavnimi pravili se tako imenovani "neo_9tevil_13eni" ("SN") dokumenti zato ne smejo ve_13 uporabljati za te namene.
Such documents are reserved exclusively for internal use within the General Secretariat for administrative purposes, such as translation.
Tak_9ni dokumenti so rezervirani izklju_13no za interno rabo znotraj generalnega sekretariata za upravne namene, npr. prevajanje.
They are not to be distributed to members of the Council or to members of its preparatory bodies.
Ne smejo se razdeliti _13lanom Sveta ali _13lanom njegovih pripravljalnih teles.
However, this system was not in force at the time when the different versions of document SN 4438/01 had been produced.
Vendar ta sistem ni bil v veljavi, ko so bile v pripravi razli_13ne verzije dokumenta SN 4438/01.
In 2001, it was still possible to produce "SN" documents for distribution to delegations.
Leta 2001 je bilo _9e vedno mogo_13e pripraviti "SN" dokumente z namenom, da se razdelijo med delegacije. Tak_9ne "SN" dokumente je razdelila slu_11be, ki jih je ustvarila, in ne slu_11ba s centraliziranim upravljanjem dokumentov.
Following renewed research, the Council had discovered that, contrary to initial evidence, more revisions of document SN 4438/01, had been produced and distributed within Council's preparatory bodies.
Svet je po ponovni raziskavi ugotovil, da je bilo v nasprotju z za_13etnimi dokazi znotraj pripravljalnih teles Sveta pripravljenih in razdeljenih ve_13 revizij dokumenta SN 4438/01.
These versions had not been loaded onto the automated circuit which enables all Council documents to be registered and saved in the electronic archive of the institution.
Te verzije niso bile dodane v avtomatsko verigo priprave dokumentov, ki omogo_13a, da se vsi dokumenti Sveta registrirajo in shranijo v elektronski arhiv institucije.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence that such revisions had been electronically recorded and validated, they were considered void.
Zato so se te revizije zaradi pomanjkanja dokazov, da so bile elektronsko evidentirane in validirane, _9tele za ni_13ne.
It granted full access to the revised versions REV 6 to REV 10 and partial access to versions REV 2 and REV 3 of document SN 4438/01.
Odobril je popoln dostop do revidiranih verzij REV 6 do REV 10 ter delen dostop do verzij REV 2 in REV 3 dokumenta SN 4438/01.
As regards the alleged failure to grant access to sensitive documents, the Council confirmed that no relevant sensitive documents existed.
Glede domnevne neizpolnitve obveznosti, da odobri dostop do dokumentov ob_13utljive narave, je Svet potrdil, da zadevnih dokumentov ob_13utljive narave ni.
As for the alleged failure to grant access to sensitive documents, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant had not submitted any evidence to rebut the Council's statement that no sensitive documents of relevance to the subject matter concerned by the complainant's request did exist, and that there were therefore no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.
Kar pa zadeva domnevno neizpolnitev obveznosti, da odobri dostop do dokumentov ob_13utljive narave, je varuh menil, da prito_11nik ni predlo_11il dokazov, ki bi ovrgli izjavo Sveta o tem, da niso obstajali dokumenti ob_13utljive narave, ki bi bili pomembni za vsebino, na katero se je nana_9ala prito_11nikova pro_9nja, ter da zato ne obstajajo razlogi za nadaljnje preiskave tega vidika primera.
Rulings given in 2005 under the rules on access to documents
Odlo_9itve sodi_7_9a v letu 2005 v skladu s predpisi glede dostopa do dokumentov
In 2005, three rulings were given by the Court of First Instance in cases concerning access to Council documents.
V letu 2005 je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje izdalo tri odlo_13itve v primerih v zvezi z dostopom do dokumentov Sveta.
On 26 April 2005, the Court of First Instance handed down its judgment in the joint cases
Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje je 26. aprila 2005 podalo sodbo v skupnih primerih
The two remaining rulings of 5
Ostali dve odlo_13itvi z dne 5. aprila
T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, José María Sison v. Council
T-110/03, T-150/03 in T-405/03, José María Sison proti Svetu oziroma 14. julija 2005 sta bili izdani v primerih T-376/03 in T-371/03, ki se oba nana_9ata na uporabo _13lena 6 Priloge III h Kadrovskim predpisom institucij Skupnosti. Prito_11nika sta med drugim navedla, da
April and 14 July 2005 were given in cases T-376/03 and T-371/03, which both relate to the application of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of the Community institutions.
25 sta bili kr_9eni na_13eli preglednosti in dostopa do dokumentov, dolo_13eni v _13lenu 255(1) Pogodbe ES
The applicants had submitted, inter alia, that the principles of transparency and access to documents laid down in Article 255(1) of the EC Treaty had been violated 25.
Glede tistih delov odlo_13itev v primerih T-376/03 in T-371/03, ki so posebej pomembni za razlago _13lena 18 Uredbe 1049/2001, je Sodi_9_13e zavzelo stali_9_13e, da se lahko pravica do dostopa do dokumentov Sveta, dolo_13ena v _13lenu 255(1) Pogodbe ES in Uredbi _9t.
As regards those parts of the rulings in cases T-376/03 and T-371/03, which are of particular relevance to the interpretation of Article 18 of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Court took the view that the right of access to Council documents laid down in Article 255(1) of the EC Treaty and Regulation No 1049/2001 may be limited or excluded – according to the principle by which the special rule derogates from the general rule (lex specialis derogat legi generali) – where there are special rules governing specific matters.
1049/2001, omeji ali izklju_13i – v skladu z na_13elom, po katerem posebno pravilo odstopa od splo_9nega pravila, (lex specialis derogat legi generali) –, _13e obstajajo posebna pravila, ki urejajo specifi_13ne zadeve.
The above-mentioned provisions on transparency and access to documents could therefore not be opposed to the principle laid down in Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, which states that "the proceedings of the Selection Board shall be secret".
Zgoraj omenjene dolo_13be o preglednosti in dostopu zato niso mogle biti v nasprotju z na_13elom iz _13lena 6 Priloge III h Kadrovskim predpisom, ki dolo_13a, da "je delo komisije za izbiro kandidatov tajno". To na_13elo je bilo vzpostavljeno z namenom, da se zagotovi neodvisnost komisij za izbiro kandidatov in
This principle had been established with a view to guaranteeing the independence of selection boards and the objectivity of their proceedings 26.
26 nepristranskost njihovega dela
Pending Court cases concerning Council decisions to refuse access to documents
Trenutno se pred sodi_9_13i Skupnosti obravnavajo _9tirje primeri, v katerih se izpodbija zakonitost odlo_13itev Sveta o zavrnitvi dostopa na podlagi Uredbe _9t.
Four cases in which the legality of Council decisions refusing access on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001 is contested are currently pending before the Community Courts, two of which were already mentioned in the Council's previous report on access to documents, to which the reader is
1049/2001; dva izmed njih sta bila _11e
27 referred
27 omenjena v prej_9njem poro_13ilu Sveta, v katerem se lahko bralec z njima seznani
Since the judgment in joint cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 was already dealt with at some length in the Council's previous report on access to documents, the reader is referred to the summary of this ruling set out on pages 31 and 32 of the Council Annual report - 2004.
Ker je bila sodba v skupnih primerih T-110/03, T-150/03 in T-405/03 _11e precej podrobno obravnavana v prej_9njem poro_13ilu Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov, naj se bralec seznani s povzetkom te sodbe, podane na straneh 31 in 32 letnega poro_13ila Sveta za leto 2004. Treba pa je opozoriti, da je ta primer trenutno predmet prito_11be na Sodi_9_13u (primer C-266/05 P). Glej odlo_13itvi v primerih T-376/03, Hendrickx proti Svetu, in T-371/03, Le Voci proti Svetu.
See judgment in case T-376/03, paragraphs 55-57, and in case T-371/03, paragraphs 120-124.
Glej odlo_13itev v primeru T-376/03, odstavke 55–57, ter v primeru T-371/03, odstavke 120–124.
See the summary of pending cases T-3/00, Pitsiorlas v. Council and ECB, and T-264/94, WWF-EPO v. Council, in the Council's Annual Report on access to documents – 2004, pp. 32 and 33.
Glej povzetek primerov v obravnavi T-3/00, Pitsiorlas proti Svetu in ECB, ter T-264/04, WWF-EPO proti Svetu, v letnem poro_13ilu Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2004, str. 28 in 29.
In cases C-39/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v. Council, and C52/05 P, Maurizio Turco v. Council, the applicants appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03
V primerih C-39/05 P, Kraljevina _6vedska proti Svetu, in C-52/05 P, Maurizio Turco proti Svetu, sta prosilca vlo_11ila prito_11bo proti sodbi Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje z dne 23 novembra 2004 v primeru T-84/03
In the fifth case, C-266/05 P, José María Sison has brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, referred to
29 dne 26. aprila 2005 v zgoraj navedenih skupnih primerih T-110/03, T-150/03 in T-405/03
Pending Court cases concerning Commission decisions to refuse access to documents in which the Council is intervening as third party.
Primeri, ki se _7e obravnavajo pred Sodi_7_9em in zadevajo odlo_9itve Komisije o zavrnitvi dostopa do dokumentov ter pri katerih Svet posreduje kot tretja stran
Lastly, the Council intervened in two cases, T-5/05, Verband der Internationale Caterer in Deutschland e.V. v. Commission, and T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo v. Commission, where the applicants have introduced actions for the annulment of Commission decisions refusing access to documents.
Nazadnje je Svet posredoval v dveh primerih – T-5/05, Verband der Internationale Caterer in Deutschland e.V. proti Komisiji, in T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo proti Komisiji, v katerih so prosilci spro_11ili ukrepe za razveljavitev odlo_13itev Komisije o zavrnitvi dostopa do dokumentov.
In both cases, access was refused on the basis of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001, according to which a Member State may request an institution not to disclose a document originating from that Member State without its prior agreement, and in both cases the applicants suggested that this provision is illegal.
V obeh primerih je bil dostop zavrnjen na podlagi _13lena 4(5) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001, v skladu s katerim lahko dr_11ava _13lanica od institucije zahteva, da ne razkrije dokumenta, ki izvira iz te dr_11ave _13lanice brez njenega predhodnega soglasja, in v obeh primerih so prosilci menili, da je ta dolo_13ba nezakonita.
Since this claim calls the validity of an act of the Council into question, it necessitates the Council's intervention as third party.
Ker ta trditev postavlja pod vpra_9aj veljavnost akta Sveta, mora Svet posredovati kot tretja stranka.
See judgment in case T-84/03 (mentioned in the Council's Annual Report for 2004, pp. 30-31), paragraphs 62 and following.
Glej sodbo v primeru T-84/03 (omenjeno v letnem poro_13ilu Sveta za leto 2004, str. 30 in 31), odstavek 62 in naslednji. G.
In this case, Mr Sison notably argues that the Court of First Instance unduly limited the scope of its review of the legality of the Council decision refusing access to the requested documents without responding to the applicant's arguments and his particular situation.
1049/2001, ter da je Sodi_9_13e napravilo napako, ko je sporno pravno mnenje opredelilo kot "pravni nasvet", medtem ko Kraljevina _8vedska v svoji vlogi trdi, da je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje napa_13no presodilo, da za mnenja pravne slu_11be v zakonodajnih zadevah obstaja "splo_9na zahteva po tajnosti". G.
The opinion of the Advocate-General of the Court concerning this case was delivered on 22 June 2006.
Sison v tem primeru zlasti trdi, da je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje neupravi_13eno omejilo podro_13je uporabe svoje presoje zakonitosti odlo_13itve Sveta, da zavrne dostop do zahtevanih dokumentov, ne da bi se odzval na prosil_13eve argumente in njegovo posebno situacijo.
The Council's experience in implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 in 2005 highlights the importance of its public register as a search tool for members of the public seeking to keep abreast of developments at Community level.
Izku_9nje Sveta pri izvajanju Uredbe _9t. 1049/2005 v letu 2005 jasno poudarjajo pomembnost javnega registra kot iskalnika, prek katerega lahko predstavniki javnosti sproti sledijo razvoju dogodkov na ravni Skupnosti.
As stated in the first part of this report the number of visits rose by nearly 16 % in 2005 (1 064 039 visits in 2005 against 919 584 in 2004); this was the third successive annual increase.
Kakor je _11e bilo navedeno v prvem delu tega poro_13ila, se je _9tevilo obiskov v letu 2005 pove_13alo za skoraj 16 % (1.064.039 obiskov v letu 2005 za razliko od 919.584 v letu 2004); to je _11e tretje zaporedno letno pove_13anje.
68,6 % of the Council documents produced in 2005 – i.e. 77 832 of the 113 398 new documents listed in the register – were made directly accessible to the public as soon as they were circulated.
Od dokumentov Sveta, ki so bili izdelani leta 2005, jih je 68,6 % – t.j. 77.832 od 113.398 novih dokumentov, ki so navedeni v registru – postalo neposredno dostopnih javnosti takoj po objavi.