natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03
31 zadevah T-110/03, T-150/03 in T-405/03
In this case, the appellant submitted that the above-mentioned judgment should be annulled on the grounds that - the Court of First Instance had unduly limited the scope of its review of legality without responding to the applicant's arguments - its review of legality effectively lead to a complete discretion of the Council and to a complete denial of the right of access to documents, and, moreover
V tej zadevi je prito_11nik navedel, da bi se morala zgoraj omenjena sodba razveljaviti iz naslednjih razlogov: _1 Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje je neupravi_13eno omejilo obseg svoje presoje zakonitosti, ne da bi se odzvalo na prosil_13eve argumente, _1 njegova presoja zakonitosti je dejansko povzro_13ila popolno diskrecijo Sveta in popolno zavrnitev pravice dostopa do dokumenta,
See the summary of this ruling set out on pages 31 and 32 of the Council Annual report on access to documents - 2004.
Glej povzetek te sodbe na straneh 31 in 32 letnega poro_13ila Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2004.
- - lead to a denial of the duty to state reasons and therefore infringed upon Article 253 of the EC Treaty the Court of First Instance had misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation 1049/2001.
_1 poleg tega je povzro_13ila neizpolnitev obveznosti glede navedbe razlogov in posledi_13no kr_9itev _13lena 253 Pogodbe ES, Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje je napa_13no razlo_11ilo in nepravilno uporabilo _13lena 4 in 9 Uredbe 1049/2001.
In its judgment, the Court rejected these grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal as unfounded in its entirety.
Sodi_9_13e je v svoji sodbi zavrnilo te razloge za prito_11bo in jo zavrglo kot popolnoma neutemeljeno.
As far as the first ground of appeal is concerned, the Court recalled that the scope of the review of legality incumbent on the Community Courts under Article 230 of the EC Treaty can vary according to the matters under consideration.
Kar zadeva prvi razlog za prito_11bo, je Sodi_9_13e opozorilo, da se lahko obseg presoje zakonitosti, h kateri so zavezana sodi_9_13a Skupnosti v skladu s _13lenom 230 Pogodbe ES, razlikuje glede na zadeve, ki jih obravnavajo.
In the case at hand, the Court of First Instance correctly took the view that a wide discretion is conferred upon an institution when it justifies its refusal of access by reference to the protection of the public interest provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and that the Community Court’s review of the legality of such a decision must therefore be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment or a misuse of powers.
V zadevnem primeru je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje pravilno zavzelo stali_9_13e, da se institucijam prepu_9_13a _9iroka diskrecija, kadar utemeljujejo zavrnitev dostopa s sklicevanjem na varstvo javnega interesa, kakor je predvideno v _13lenu 4(1)(a) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001, in da mora biti zato presoja sodi_9_13a Skupnosti glede zakonitosti tak_9ne odlo_13itve omejena na preverjanje, ali so se upo_9tevala postopkovna pravila in obveznost glede navedbe razlogov, ali so bila dejstva pravilno navedena ter ali je bila storjena o_13itna napaka pri presoji oziroma ali je pri_9lo do zlorabe pooblastil.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance was correct to hold that the particular interest which may be asserted by a requesting party in obtaining access to a document concerning him personally cannot be taken into account when the mandatory exceptions provided for in Article 4 (1) (a) of the Regulation are applicable.
Poleg tega je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje pravilno menilo, da se posebni interes, s katerim bi lahko prosilec uveljavljal dostop do dokumenta, ki zadeva njega osebno, ne more upo_9tevati, kadar veljajo obvezne izjeme, dolo_13ene v _13lenu 4(1)(a) Uredbe.
The purpose of Regulation 1049/2001 is to give the general public a right of access to documents of the institutions and not to lay down rules designed to protect the particular interest which a specific individual may have in gaining access to one of them32.
Namen Uredbe 1049/2001 je splo_9ni javnosti zagotoviti pravico dostopa do dokumentov institucij in ne dolo_13iti predpisov, s katerimi bi se za_9_13itil posebni interes, ki bi ga posameznik lahko imel pri pridobitvi dostopa do tak_9nega dokumenta32.
As regards the alleged infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice pointed out that the statement of reasons required by this Article must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent Community Court to exercise its power of review.
V zvezi z domnevno kr_9itvijo _13lena 253 Pogodbe ES je Sodi_9_13e poudarilo, da mora biti navedba razlogov, ki jo zahteva ta _13len, primerna zadevnemu aktu in na jasen in nedvoumen na_13in razkriti na_13in sklepanja, ki ga je uporabila institucija, ki je sprejela zadevni ukrep, in sicer tako, da lahko zadevne osebe ugotovijo razloge za ta ukrep in da lahko pristojno sodi_9_13e Skupnosti izvaja svojo pristojnost presoje.
See the judgment of 1 February 2007, paragraphs 43 and 47.
Glej sodbo z dne 1. februarja 2007, odstavka 43 in 47.
The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
Zahteve, ki jim mora zadostiti navedba razlogov, so odvisne od okoli_9_13in vsakega primera, predvsem od vsebine zadevnega ukrepa, zna_13aja navedenih razlogov ter interesa, ki bi ga naslovniki ukrepa ali druge strani, ki jih ukrep neposredno in posami_13no zadeva, lahko imele pri pridobitvi pojasnil.
It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question.
Pri sklepanju ni potrebe po vseh bistvenih dejstvih in pravnih vpra_9anjih, saj je treba vpra_9anje o tem, ali navedba razlogov izpolnjuje zahteve _13lena 253 Pogodbe ES, oceniti ne le glede ubeseditve, temve_13 tudi glede vsebine in glede vseh pravnih predpisov, ki urejajo zadevno temo.
In the present case, the Court of First Instance correctly applied those principles and did not err in law in deciding that, brief though it may be, as regards both the total refusal of access and the refusal of partial access to the documents in respect of which disclosure was sought, the reasoning of the first decision refusing access was still adequate in the light of the context of the case and sufficient to enable the appellant to ascertain the reasons for the refusal and the Court of First Instance to carry out the review of legality incumbent upon it.
V tem primeru je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje pravilno uporabilo ta na_13ela in ni kr_9ilo zakona z odlo_13itvijo, da je sklepanje v prvi odlo_13itvi o zavrnitvi dostopa – _13eprav je zelo jedrnato, kar zadeva popolno zavrnitev dostopa in zavrnitev delnega dostopa do dokumentov, za katere se je zahtevalo razkritje – vendarle ustrezno glede na okoli_9_13ine primera in zado_9_13a zahtevi, da je prito_11nik lahko ugotovil razloge za zavrnitev in da je Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje lahko izvedlo presojo zakonitosti, za katero je zadol_11eno.
The Court of First Instance correctly took the view that such brevity is justified, in particular, by the need not to undermine the sensitive interests protected by the exceptions to the right of access established by the first and third indents of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 through disclosure of the very
Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje je pravilno menilo, da tak_9no jedrnatost upravi_13uje predvsem potreba, da se ob_9utljivi interesi, za_7_9iteni z izjemami glede pravice do dostopa, dolo_13enimi v prvi in tretji alinei _13lena 4(1)(a) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001, ne smejo ogroziti z razkritjem prav teh informacij, ki bi jih morale te
information which those exceptions are designed to protect
izjeme za_7_9ititi
As regards the applicant's final ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right of access on the ground of misconstruction of Articles 4 (5) and 9 (3) of the Regulation, the Court of Justice pointed out that the documents to which the Council had refused access were sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation 1049/2001, and that in view of the special nature of sensitive documents, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 requires the consent of the originating authority before such documents are recorded in the register or released.
Kar zadeva prosil_13ev zadnji razlog za prito_11bo, v katerem se o_13ita kr_9itev pravice dostopa na podlagi napa_13ne razlage _13lenov 4(5) in 9(3) Uredbe, je Sodi_9_13e opozorilo, da so dokumenti, do katerih je Svet zavrnil dostop, ob_13utljive narave v smislu _13lena 9 Uredbe 1049/2001 in da glede na poseben zna_13aj ob_13utljivih dokumentov _13len 9(3) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001 dolo_13a, da je za vpis v register ali objavo tak_9nih dokumentov potrebna privolitev organa, ki jih je ustvaril.
The Court of First Instance was therefore correct to hold that it followed from those provisions that the originating authority of a sensitive document is empowered to oppose disclosure not only of that document’s content but even of its existence, and to conclude that such authority also has the power to prevent disclosure
Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje je zato pravilno menilo, da iz teh dolo_13b izhaja, da ima organ, ki je ob_9utljiv dokument ustvaril, pravico nasprotovati razkritju ne le vsebine tega dokumenta, temve_9 celo njegovega obstoja, in pravilno sklenilo, da ima tak_9en organ mo_13 prepre_9iti razkritje lastne identitete v primeru,
34 of its own identity in the event that the existence of a sensitive document should become known
_9e bi obstoj ob_9utljivega dokumenta postal znan
The Court of Justice went on to conclude that as the legal analysis and findings of fact thus made by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal were sufficient in themselves to support the conclusion that the Council was entitled to refuse to disclose the identity of the originating authority (in this case of the State concerned), it was unnecessary to examine the complaint alleging misconstruction of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since such an examination could not, in any event, cast doubt on that conclusion or, therefore, on the operative part of the judgment under appeal.
Sodi_9_13e je nato zaklju_13ilo, da pravna analiza in ugotovitve o dejstvih, do katerih je pri_9lo Sodi_9_13e prve stopnje v sodbi, proti kateri je vlo_11ena prito_11ba, sami po sebi zadostujejo za podporo sklepu, da ima Svet pravico zavrniti razkritje identitete organa, ki je dokument ustvaril (v tem primeru zadevne dr_11ave), ter da zato ni potrebno obravnavati prito_11be, ki o_13ita napa_13no razlago _13lena 4(5) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001, saj tak_9na obravnava v nobenem primeru ne bi vzbudila dvomov o navedenem sklepu ali posledi_13no o operativnem delu sodbe, proti kateri je vlo_11ena prito_11ba.
Pending Court cases concerning Council decisions to refuse access to documents
Zadeve, ki se _7e obravnavajo pred Sodi_7_9em in se nana_7ajo na odlo_9itve Sveta o zavrnitvi dostopa do dokumentov
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
Trenutno se na sodi_9_13ih Skupnosti obravnavajo _9tiri zadeve, v katerih se izpodbija zakonitost odlo_13itev Sveta o zavrnitvi dostopa na podlagi Uredbe _9t.
35 mentioned in the Council's annual report on access to documents - 2004, to which the reader is referred
1049/2001; dve izmed njih sta bili _11e omenjeni v letnem poro_13ilu Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2004, v katerem se lahko bralec z njima
As regards cases C-39/05 P, Kingdom of Sweden v. Council, and C-52/05 P, Maurizio Turco v. Council, in which the applicants appealed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case
Glede zadev C-39/05 P, Kraljevina _6vedska proti Svetu, in C-52/05 P, Maurizio Turco proti Svetu, v katerih sta prosilca vlo_11ila prito_11bo proti sodbi Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi
T-84/03 (Maurizio Turco v. Council) 36, it should be recalled that these cases were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, the oral procedure and the judgment by order of the President of the Court of 19 April
T-84/03 (Maurizio Turco proti Svetu)36, je treba spomniti, da sta bili ti dve zadevi s sklepom predsednika Sodi_9_13a z dne 19. aprila 2005 zdru_11eni za namene pisnega postopka, ustnega postopka in sodbe.
Pending Court cases concerning Commission decisions to refuse access to documents in which the Council is intervening as third party.
Zadeve, ki se _7e obravnavajo pred Sodi_7_9em in se nana_7ajo na odlo_9itve Komisije o zavrnitvi dostopa do dokumentov ter pri katerih Svet posreduje kot tretja stran
With regard to two court cases, mentioned in the previous annual report, in which the Council has intervened as a third party, the action in case T-5/05, Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland e.V. v. Commission, has been withdrawn.
Kar zadeva dve sodni zadevi, omenjeni v predhodnem letnem poro_13ilu, v katerih je Svet posredoval kot tretja stran, je bila to_11ba v zadevi T-5/05, Verband der Internationalen Caterer in Deutschland e.V. proti Komisiji, umaknjena.
The case was consequently removed from the register of the Court of First Instance by order of 22 January 2007.
Zadeva je bila nato izbrisana iz registra Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje s sklepom z dne 22. januarja 2007.
The Council intervenes in case T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo v. Commission, where the applicant has implicitly called into question the validity of Article 4 (5) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Svet posreduje v zadevi T-444/05, S.p.A. Navigazione Libera del Golfo proti Komisiji, kjer je prosilec implicitno podvomil v veljavnost _13lena 4(5) Uredbe 1049/2001.
See the summary of pending cases T-3/00, Pitsiorlas v. Council and ECB, and T-264/04, WWF-EPO v. Council, in the Council's Annual Report on access to documents – 2004, pp. 32 and 33.
Glej povzetek zadev 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. 32 in 33.
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 zadevi T-84/03 (omenjeno v letnem poro_13ilu Sveta za leto 2004, str. 30 in 31), odstavek 62 in naslednji. G.
The Council's experience in implementing Regulation No 1049/2001 in 2006 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. 1049/2001 v letu 2006 jasno poudarjajo pomembnost javnega registra kot iskalnika, s pomo_13jo katerega lahko posamezniki sproti sledijo razvoju dogodkov na ravni Skupnosti.
As stated in the first part of this report, the number of users of the register increased by 48,7% during the reference period, whereas the number of visits rose by 61,8 % (1 722 354 visits in 2006 against 1 064 039 in 2005); this was the fourth successive annual increase.
Kakor je bilo navedeno _11e v prvem delu tega poro_13ila, se je _9tevilo uporabnikov registra v referen_13nem obdobju pove_13alo za 48,7 %, _9tevilo obiskov pa se je pove_13alo za 61,8 % (1.722.354 obiskov v letu 2006 v primerjavi z 1.064.039 obiski v letu 2005); to je _11e _13etrto zaporedno letno pove_13anje.
It should be pointed out here that 65 % of the Council documents produced in 2006 – i.e. 102 087 of the 157 707 documents listed in the register – were made directly accessible to the public upon circulation.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je 65 % dokumentov Sveta, ki so bili izdelani v letu 2006 – tj. 102.087 od 157.707 dokumentov, ki so navedeni v registru – postalo neposredno dostopnih javnosti takoj po objavi.
Lastly, since 1 February 2004 any new document to which the Council has provided partial access may be consulted online.
In nazadnje, od 1. februarja 2004 je mo_11en tudi dostop prek interneta do vsakega novega dokumenta, za katerega je Svet odobril delni dostop.
In spite of the increasing number of documents made available directly via the register upon circulation, an increase in the number of requests and, in particular, in the number of documents concerned by the requests (11 353 in 2006 against 9 457 in 2005) was observed during the reference period.
Kljub nara_9_13anju _9tevila dokumentov, ki so prek registra neposredno dostopni takoj po objavi, je bil v referen_13nem obdobju opa_11en tudi porast _9tevila pro_9enj za dostop in zlasti _9tevila dokumentov, na katere se pro_9nje nana_9ajo (11.353 v letu 2006 za razliko od 9.457 v letu 2005).
It should also be noted that requests for access relate almost exclusively to documents which are listed but not directly accessible via the register.
Poleg tega je treba opomniti, da se zahteve za dostop nana_9ajo skoraj izklju_13no na dokumente, ki so navedeni na seznamu, vendar niso neposredno dostopni prek registra.
A total of 949 documents of the documents considered (representing 8,5% of the documents requested in 2006) were classified (45 as CONFIDENTIEL UE and 904 as RESTREINT UE); the often highly complex process of examining such documents represents an additional workload not only for the Council staff dealing with the requests as soon as they are received, but also for officials in the various departments which produced the documents, who in many cases must themselves examine the requested documents on the basis of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Skupno 949 od vseh obravnavanih dokumentov (kar predstavlja 8,5 % dokumentov, zahtevanih v letu 2006) je bilo tajnih (45 z oznako CONFIDENTIEL UE in 904 z oznako RESTREINT UE); pogosto zelo zapleteni postopek preu_13evanja tak_9nih dokumentov predstavlja dodatno delovno breme ne samo za osebje Sveta, ki obravnava zahteve takoj po prejemu, ampak tudi za uradnike razli_13nih drugih slu_11b, kjer so dokumenti nastali, saj morajo v mnogih primerih sami preu_13iti zahtevane dokumente na podlagi Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001.
By way of illustration, in 2006 processing time for initial requests was on average 13 working days.
1049/2001. _12e ponazorimo – v letu 2006 je bilo za obravnavo za_13etnih pro_9enj v povpre_13ju potrebnih 13 delovnih dni.
In respect of confirmatory applications, which are examined by the Working Party on Information before being submitted to Coreper and the Council for adoption, the average was 24 working days in 2006, compared to 26 working days in 2005.
Kar zadeva potrdilne pro_9nje, ki jih preu_13i Delovna skupina za informiranje, preden se predlo_11ijo Coreperju in Svetu v sprejetje, je bil v letu 2006 povpre_13ni _13as preu_13itve 24 delovnih dni v primerjavi s 26 delovnimi dnevi v letu 2005.
In this regard, the contribution made by the Working Party on Information to the processing of confirmatory applications must be noted.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti na prispevek Delovne skupine za informiranje pri obravnavi potrdilnih pro_9enj.
The Working Party met on 23 occasions in 2006.
Delovna skupina se je v letu 2006 sestala 23-krat.
Its main tasks include examining documents in respect of which a confirmatory application has been made, and examining and finalising the draft replies to such applications, which in a number of cases deal with complex issues relating to public safety, defence and military affairs, or international relations.
Njene osnovne naloge vklju_13ujejo preu_13itev dokumentov, za katere je bila vlo_11ena potrdilna pro_9nja, pa tudi preu_13itev in dokon_13anje osnutkov odgovorov na te pro_9nje, ki v _9tevilnih primerih zadevajo zapletena vpra_9anja glede javne varnosti, obrambnih in voja_9kih zadev ali mednarodnih odnosov.
The rate of access to Council documents in 2006 rose in comparison to 2005 (87,7% in 2006 as against 81,2% in 2005).
Stopnja dostopov do dokumentov Sveta v letu 2006 se je pove_13ala v primerjavi z letom 2005 (87,7 % v letu 2006 za razliko od 81,2 % v letu 2005).
Moreover, these figures should be seen in conjunction with the rise in the number of documents requested (up 20% and the above-mentioned increase in the number of documents made directly available via the register upon circulation (102 087 in 2006 against 77 832 in 2005, representing an increase of 31,2 % in relation to the previous year).
Poleg tega je treba te _9tevilke obravnavati v povezavi s porastom _9tevila zahtevanih dokumentov (20% pove_13anje) in omenjenim porastom _9tevila dokumentov, ki so prek registra neposredno dostopni takoj po objavi (102.087 v letu 2006 za razliko od 77.832 v letu 2005, kar predstavlja 31,2 % pove_13anje glede na predhodno leto).
In conclusion, both the analysis of the processing of requests for access and the public's use of the register of Council documents suggest that the aims set by the Treaties and by Regulation No 1049/2001 continued to be achieved in 2006.
Prav tako pa analiza obdelave zahtev za dostop kot tudi javna uporaba registra dokumentov Sveta ka_11eta, da so bili cilji, dolo_13eni v Pogodbah in Uredbi _9t. 1049/2001, dose_11eni tudi v letu 2006.
Number of documents requested by initial applications
2. _8tevilo dokumentov, zahtevanih z za_13etnimi pro_9njami
2004 10.971 partially/wholly 1.069 7.089 partially/wholly 1.928 8.984 partially/wholly 1.092 9.879 partially/wholly 1.254 6.281 partially/wholly 1.155 8.451
2004 10.971 delno/v celoti 1.069 7.089 delno/v celoti 1.928 8.984 delno/v celoti 1.092 9.879 delno/v celoti 1.254 6.281 delno/v celoti 1.155 8.451
Number of confirmatory applications (confirmatory applications may be made if initial application is refused)
4. _8tevilo potrdilnih pro_9enj (potrdilne pro_9nje se lahko vlo_11ijo, _13e je za_13etna pro_9nja zavrnjena)
99 partially/wholly 53 46
99 delno/v celoti 53 46
Culture Education/Youth
Izobra_11evanje/mladina
Transport Environment Health and Consumer Protection Economic and Monetary Policy
Zdravje in varstvo potro_9nikov
Tax Questions – Fiscal Issues
Dav_13na vpra_9anja – Fiskalne zadeve
Reasons for refusal of access (replies provided by the General Secretariat of the Council at the initial stage)
Razlogi za zavrnitev dostopa (odgovore je poslal generalni sekretariat Sveta v za_13etni fazi)
Protection of public interest as regards public security
Varstvo javnega interesa, kar zadeva javno varnost
Protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property
Varstvo poslovnih interesov fizi_13ne ali pravne osebe, vklju_13no z intelektualno lastnino
Protection of the Institution's decisionmaking process
Varstvo postopka odlo_13anja institucije
Ponderated average (initial + confirmatory) Ombudsman2
Ponderirano povpre_13je (za_13etne + potrdilne)
327 of 2100, being 15,6% of the applications
327 izmed 2100, kar predstavlja 15,6% pro_9enj
414 of 2224, being 18,6% of the applications
414 izmed 2224, kar predstavlja 18,6% pro_9enj
Confirmatory applications and complaints to the European Ombudsman are examined by the Council’s Working Party on Information and by the Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 2).
Potrdilne pro_9nje in prito_11be, naslovljene na Evropskega varuha _13lovekovih pravic, preu_13ita Delovna skupina Sveta za informiranje in Odbor stalnih predstavnikov (2. del).
Replies to the applicants and to the European Ombudsman are adopted by the Council.
Odgovore na pro_9nje in odgovore Evropskemu varuhu _13lovekovih pravic sprejme Svet.