natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances, the premature release of the content of preliminary positions which were taken by the delegates of the Council members and the Commission representatives in the meetings and which, for an expert, may be easily a ributable even in the absence of clear identification, can be prejudicial to the institution’s capacity to find compromise solutions on those issues and thereby thwart its efforts to reach overall agreement on an important legislative text.
Prezgodnja objava vsebine predhodnih stališč, ki so jih na srečanjih podali zastopniki članov Sveta ter predstavniki Komisij e in ki bi jih poznavalec zlahka nekomu pripisal (tudi tedaj, ko ne obstaja jasna identifi kacij a), bi v teh okoliščinah lahko škodila sposobnosti institucije, da poišče sporazumne rešitve o teh vsebinah in na tak način onemogočila poskus sprejetja celostnega dogovora o pomembnem zakonodajnem besedilu.
Document 13563/01 contains a Presidency compromise text on the proposed Regulation.
Dokument 13563/01 vsebuje sporazumno besedilo predsedstva o predlagani uredbi.
Parts of this compromise text have been released, but other parts which concern particularly contentious and controversial issues have been withheld for similar reasons as those referred to above.
Deli tega sporazumnega besedila so bili objavljeni, toda ostali deli, ki zadevajo posebno sporne zadeve, niso bili objavljeni iz podobnih razlogov kot zgoraj omenjeni.
A compromise proposal only has a chance of being accepted if each delegation is prepared to make concessions from its initial positions.
Sporazumni predlog je lahko sprejet le takrat, ko je vsaka delegacij a pripravljena popustiti.
Disclosure of a compromise proposal on particularly delicate ma ers, whilst it is still being examined by the members of the Council and their delegates and the Commission would thwart its very purpose.
Razkritje sporazumnega predloga o posebno občutljivih zadevah, medtem ko jo člani Sveta skupaj z njihovimi delegati ter Komisij a še vedno pregledujejo, bi bila v nasprotju z njenim namenom.
As regards the second allegation, the Council argued that the Commission documents concerned are non-papers prepared by the Commission services for discussion in the Council working group, designed to clarify certain issues relating to the Commission proposal, which had neither been approved by the Commission at the level of the college of Commissioners nor were intended to commit it.
Glede druge trditve je Svet menil, da so službe Komisij e zadevne neuradne dokumente pripravile zgolj za razpravo v delovni skupini Sveta z namenom razjasnitve določenih zadev v zvezi s predlogom Komisije, ki ga ni odobrila niti Komisij a na ravni kolegija komisarjev, niti ni bil njihov namen, da bi bila zavezujoča.
The deletions from these documents are justified by the same reasoning as those made from the Council documents concerned.
Izbrisi iz teh dokumentov so upravičeni z isto obrazložitvijo kot tisti iz zadevnih dokumentov Sveta.
As regards the third allegation, the Council argued that by clicking on the icon “document information” in the public register of documents on the Internet, the user obtains access to all the information which appears on the head of the document, including its originator, its addressee and the description of the document category, as well as its subject ma er.
Kar zadeva tretjo trditev je Svet menil, da s klikom na ikono “podatki o dokumentih” v javnem registru dokumentov na internetu uporabnik dobi dostop do vseh informacij , ki se pojavijo v glavi dokumenta, vključno z njegovim tvorcem, naslovljencem, opisom kategorij e dokumenta in zadevo.
However, the Council is prepared to examine the possibility of increasing the user-friendliness of the public register.
Vendar je Svet pripravljen preučiti možnost uporabniku prijaznega dostopa do javnega registra.
The Council also supplied the Ombudsman with a copy of the documents as supplied to the complainant.
Svet je Varuhu tudi priskrbel kopij o dokumentov, kot so bili dostavljeni pritožnici.
As regards the first allegation, the complainant argued that the Council’s opinion treats the enactment of EU legislation as it would the negotiation of an international treaty, where concessions are traded for points in the national interest.
V zvezi s prvo trditvijo je pritožnica menila, da Svet v svojem mnenju uzakonitev predpisov EU obravnava kot pogajanja o mednarodni pogodbi, kjer se s popuščanjem trguje za točke tam, kjer obstaja interes določene države.
According to the complainant, this approach is inappropriate for enactment of legislation that is directly binding on the public.
Po navedbah pritožnice je tak pristop neprimeren za uzakonitev predpisov, ki so za javnost neposredno zavezujoči.
Furthermore, the Council’s debate is not the equivalent of a ministerial or cabinet meeting at which odd and possibly unacceptable ideas are put forward among individuals.
Razen tega razprava v Svetu ni enakovredna ministrskemu ali kabinetnemu srečanju, ko posamezniki predlagajo nenavadne ali morda nesprejemljive ideje.
By the time a proposal gets to the Council, the Commission has already put the proposal in the public domain and the Council acts as a legislator.
Do takrat, ko predlog dospe k Svetu, ga Komisij a že da v javnost, Svet pa deluje kot zakonodajalec.
For the text of generally binding laws to be kept secret until the content is fixed seems an extreme remedy for a problem that could be managed by deletion of delegations’ names.
Da bi besedilo splošno veljavnih zakonov moralo ostati zaupno, dokler vsebina ni dokončna, se zdi zelo strogo sredstvo za problem, ki bi ga lahko rešili z izbrisom imen delegacij .
As regards the second allegation, the complainant stated that she is willing to accept that Commission working documents prepared as contributions to the Council debate should be treated in the same way as Council documents.
Glede druge trditve je pritožnica pojasnila, da je pripravljena sprejeti dejstvo, da se delovni dokumenti Komisije, pripravljeni kot prispevek k razpravi v Svetu, obravnavajo enako kot dokumenti Sveta.
She also made a number of suggestions to enhance what she referred to as this “uniquely valuable source of information.”
Podala je nekaj predlogov, da bi še obogatila ta – kot ga je sama označila – “edinstveno dragoceni vir informacij”. ”.
FURTHER INQUIRIES
NADALJNJA PREISKAVA
A er careful consideration of the Council’s opinion and the complainant’s observations, the Ombudsman considered it necessary to inspect the documents concerned in order to evaluate the extent and nature of the deletions.
Po temeljiti proučitvi mnenja Sveta in pripomb pritožnice je Varuh menil, da je potrebno preiskati zadevne dokumente, da bi tako ocenili naravo in obseg izbrisov.
The inspection
Sklepi preiskav
The Ombudsman first recalled the positions of the Council and complainant as stated in the Council’s opinion and the complainant’s observations.
Varuh je najprej opozoril na stališča Sveta in pritožnice, kot so navedena v mnenju Sveta in pripombah pritožnice.
The Ombudsman noted that the Council’s justification of the deletions appears to be that release of the deleted parts of the documents could enable someone, possibly an expert, to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council.
Navedel je, da utemeljitev Sveta glede izbrisov temelji na tem, da bi objava izbrisanih delov dokumenta lahko nekomu, ki je morda strokovnjak, omogočila, da identificira stališča delegacij ali predstavnikov Komisij e glede zadev, o katerih se razpravlja v Svetu.
The complainant accepts that the Council can keep the names of delegations confidential, and that Commission working documents prepared as contributions to the Council debate should be treated in the same way.
Pritožnica sprejema dejstvo, da lahko Svet ohrani imena delegacijkot zaupna in da bi morali delovne dokumente Komisije, pripravljene kot prispevke k razpravi v Svetu, obravnavati na enak način.
The Ombudsman therefore sought to verify from inspection of the documents whether the material that had been deleted by the Council could allow someone, possibly an expert, to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council.
Zato je Varuh poskušal v pregledu preveriti, ali bi lahko izbrisano gradivo nekomu, ki je morda strokovnjak, omogočilo identifi kacij o stališč delegacijali predstavnikov Komisij e glede zadev, o katerih razpravlja Svet.
The Ombudsman then stated the results of his inspection, as follows:
Varuh je nato navedel naslednje izsledke pregleda:
References to named delegations or to the Commission representative
Sklicevanja na imenovane delegacij e ali predstavnike Komisij e
In the documents inspected, references to named delegations or to the Commission representative normally take one of three forms: (i) a footnote (ii) a bracketed reference in the text or (iii) an introductory phrase such as “The (xx ) delegation expressed the view...”, or “The (xx ) delegation considered that…”
V pregledanih dokumentih so sklicevanja na imenovane delegacij e ali na predstavnika Komisij e običajno v eni od treh oblik: (i) opomba pod črto, (ii) sklicevanje v oklepajih v besedilu ali (iii) uvodna fraza kot “delegacija (xx) je izrazila stališče ...” ali “delegacija (xx) je menila, da ...”.
All footnote references to named delegations appear to have been deleted, whilst in most cases the corresponding text has been released.
Kaže, da so bila vsa sklicevanja v opombah pod črto izbrisana, medtem ko je bilo ustrezno besedilo večinoma objavljeno.
In general, the deleted footnotes contain no information other than the identity of the delegation and the fact that it proposed, agreed or disagreed with, or made a reservation concerning, the position stated in the text.
Izbrisane opombe pod črto na splošno ne vsebujejo nobenih informacij razen identitete delegacij e in dejstva, da je predlagala, se strinjala, se ni strinjala ali pa je izrazila pridržek glede stališč, navedenih v besedilu.
An exception is the footnote on page 3 of document 12241/01.
Izjema je opomba pod črto na 3. strani dokumenta 12241/01.
Except for this one case, the Council’s deletions of footnotes appear to be the minimum necessary to conceal the identities of delegations.
Razen v tem primeru predstavljajo izbrisi opomb pod črto potrebni minimum za preprečitev identifi kacij e delegacij .
In most cases where references to named delegations are in form (ii) or (iii), the entire paragraph concerned has been deleted.
V večini primerov, kjer so sklicevanja na imenovane delegacij e v obliki (ii) ali (iii), je bil celoten zadevni odstavek izbrisan.
In contrast, paragraphs 19, 33, 44, 50-51, 69 of document 13385/00 have been released in their entirety without deleting the references to named delegations and/or the Commission representative.
Odstavki 19, 33, 44, 50-51, 69 dokumenta 13385/00 so bili nasprotno objavljeni v celoti, brez izbrisov sklicevanj na imenovane delegacij e in/ali predstavnika Komisije.
There appear to be no cases, however, where the Council has deleted only the reference to the delegation and/or the Commission representative and released the rest of the text.
Primerov, da bi Svet izbrisal zgolj sklicevanje na delegacij o in/ali predstavnika Komisij e in objavil preostalo besedilo, ni bilo.
There is only one case in which the Ombudsman can confirm that the rest of the text of a deleted paragraph in this category might allow the identity of the delegation concerned to be inferred: paragraph 36 of document 13385/00.
Varuh lahko potrdi samo en primer, v katerem bi lahko preostalo besedilo izbrisanega odstavka v tej skupini omogočilo identifi kacij o delegacije: odstavek 36 dokumenta 13385/00.
Deleted material which does not contain references to named delegations or to the Commission representative
Izbrisano gradivo, ki ne vsebuje sklicevanj na imenovane delegacij e ali predstavnika Komisij e
The Council has deleted certain sections of documents, paragraphs and parts of paragraphs that contain no reference to named delegations, or to the Commission representative.
Svet je izbrisal določene dele dokumentov, odstavkov ali delov odstavkov, ki ne vsebujejo sklicevanj na imenovane delegacij e ali predstavnike Komisije.
Some, though not all, of these paragraphs contain phrases such as “some delegations expressed the view…” or “delegations expressed the view…”.
Nekateri od teh odstavkov, toda ne vsi, vsebujejo fraze, kot so “nekatere delegacij e so izrazile stališče ...” ali “delegacije so izrazile stališče ...”.
In certain other cases, the deleted material consists of Presidency compromise proposals.
V nekaterih drugih primerih vsebuje izbrisano gradivo sporazumne predloge predsedstva.
The Ombudsman cannot confirm that any of the deleted material in this category would enable the views of a specific delegation or delegations, or of the Commission representative to be identified.
Varuh ne more potrditi, da bi katerikoli izbrisani del v tej skupini lahko omogočil ugotovitev stališča določene delegacij e ali delegacij oziroma predstavnika Komisije.
Although the Council refers to the possibility of an expert making such an identification, this appears unlikely given the nature of the deleted material.
Čeprav se Svet sklicuje na možnost, da bi strokovnjak lahko prišel do ustrezne ugotovitve, je to glede na naravo izbrisanega gradiva malo verjetno.
On the basis of the inspection, the Ombudsman considers that deletion of at least the following material does not appear to be justified by the reasoning that its release could enable someone, possibly an expert, to identify the positions of delegations, or of the Commission representative, on ma ers under discussion in the Council :
Na podlagi pregleda Varuh smatra, da izbrisi naslednjega gradiva niso utemeljeni s pojasnilom, da bi objava lahko nekomu, ki je morda strokovnjak, omogočila identificirati stališča delegacij ali predstavnika Komisij e glede zadev, o katerih razpravlja Svet:
Document 12241/01: footnote on page 3 (except for name of delegation); paragraphs 17-21, 23-27.
Dokument 12241/01: opomba pod črto na strani 3 (razen imena delegacije), odstavki 17-21, 23-27.
Document 10022/01: pages 29-36 (tables containing a factual comparison of main competition law provisions in Member States with Arts 81-82 EC).
Dokument 10022/01: strani 29-36 (tabele z dejansko primerjavo glavnih ureditev v predpisih konkurenčnega prava v državah članicah s členi 81-82 EC).
Document 13798/00: paragraphs 5-8, 9-10 (partial deletions), 14-15.
Dokument 13798/00: odstavki 5-8, 9-10 (delni izbrisi), 14-15.
Document 12856/00: paragraphs 2, 3 (partial deletion).
Dokument 12856/00: odstavka 2, 3 (delni izbris).
Document 6834/01: paragraphs 3 (partial deletion), 6, 8, 10.
Dokument 6834/01: odstavki 3 (delni izbris), 6, 8, 10.
Document 13563/01 falls into two parts: a progress report and Annexes.
Dokument 13563/01 se razdeli na dva dela: poročilo o napredku in aneksi.
On the basis of the inspection, the Ombudsman considers that paragraphs 6, 8, 10-12, 19-20 and 22 could also be released without enabling anyone to identify the views of a specific delegation or delegations, or of the Commission representative.
Na podlagi pregleda Varuh smatra, da bi bili odstavki 6, 8, 10-12, 19-20 in 22 lahko objavljeni, ne da bi to nekomu omogočilo identifi kacij o stališč določene delegacij e ali delegacijoziroma predstavnika Komisije.
In Annex II to Document 13563/01 (the Presidency compromise text for a Regulation), there seems to be no basis to distinguish between those parts of the text (excluding footnotes) which have been released and those parts which have been deleted, other than that the la er deal with subjects that are considered politically more delicate.
V Aneksu II dokumenta 13563/01 (sporazumni predlog predsedstva za besedilo uredbe) ni videti podlage za razlikovanje med tistimi deli besedila (razen opomb pod črto), ki so bili objavljeni, in izbrisanimi deli, razen tega, da slednji obravnavajo zadeve, ki so politično gledano bolj občutljive.
Release of the deleted text (excluding footnotes) could not, in the Ombudsman’s view, enable anyone, even an expert, to identify the views of a specific delegation or delegations, or of the Commission representative.
Objava izbrisanega besedila (brez opomb pod črto) po mnenju Varuha ne bi mogla nikomur, niti strokovnjaku, omogočiti identifi kacij e stališč določene delegacij e ali delegacij oziroma predstavnika Komisije.
The same analysis also applies to the deletions in Document 5158/01, which contains an earlier proposal for the text of a Regulation.
Enako velja za izbrise v dokumentu 5158/01, ki vsebuje starejši predlog besedila uredbe.
The request for further information
Zahteva po nadaljnjih informacijah ah
In view of the above, the Ombudsman kindly requested the Council to re-examine its position in relation to the deleted material mentioned above and to inform him whether it would be prepared to release it to the complainant.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je Varuh vljudno pozval Svet, da ponovno preuči svoje stališče glede zgoraj omenjenega izbrisanega gradiva in ga obvesti, ali bi bil pripravljen, da ga da pritožnici.
In the light of this progress, the Council considered that the complainant could now be given access to the documents concerned in their entirety.
Glede na ta razvoj je Svet menil, da se lahko pritožnici omogoči dostop do teh dokumentov v celoti.
In her observations, the complainant stated that the Council seems to have taken away the grounds for complaint by granting access to the documents concerned, but also expressed frustration at not having had access before the Regulation was adopted.
V svojih pripombah je pritožnica navedla, da je Svet odstranil razloge za pritožbo, s tem da je dovolil dostop do zadevnih dokumentov, obenem pa tudi izrazila nezadovoljstvo, ker ni imela dostopa do dokumentov pred sprejetjem uredbe. Pritožnica se je Varuhu zahvalila, da je v njenem imenu prevzel primer.
Refusal of full access to certain documents
Zavrnitev popolnega dostopa do dokumentov
1.1 The Council gave the complainant only partial access to certain documents concerned with the modernisation of EU competition procedures.
1.1 Svet je pritožnici dovolil le delni dostop do določenih dokumentov v zvezi z posodobitvijo konkurenčnih postopkov EU.
The complainant alleged that the Council deleted more material than was justified by its reasoning concerning the need to maintain confidentiality of individual delegations’ positions on particular subject ma ers which are still under discussion.
Pritožnica je trdila, da je Svet izbrisal več gradiva, kot je to utemeljeno z obrazložitvijo potrebe po ohranjanju zaupnosti stališč posameznih delegacij o določenih zadevah, ki so še vedno v obravnavi.
The complainant accepted that the Council may keep the names of delegations confidential, but argued that the content of the positions adopted should be released, together with other parts of the documents concerned.
Pritožnica je sprejela dejstvo, da Svet lahko ohrani imena delegacij kot zaupna, vendar je trdila, da bi morala biti vsebina sprejetih stališč skupaj z drugimi deli zadevnih dokumentov dostopna.
1.2 The Council justified its decision to refuse access to certain parts of the documents by reference to the first paragraph of Article 4 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001.60 According to the Council, the proposal in question raises a number of extremely delicate and contentious issues which, at the time, were still the subject of difficult negotiations within the Council at a political level.
1.2 Svet je svojo odločitev o zavrnitvi dostopa do določenih delov dokumentov utemeljil s sklicevanjem na prvi odstavek člena 4 (3) Uredbe 1049/2001.60 Po mnenju Sveta sporni predlog odpira veliko izjemno občutljivih in spornih vprašanj, ki so bila tedaj še vedno predmet težavnih pogajanj na politični ravni v okviru Sveta.
In reply, the Council stated that it had reached political agreement on the dra Regulation61
V takih okoliščinah bi prezgodnja objava predhodnih stališč, ki jih
“Access to a document, drawn up by an institution for internal use or received by an institution, which relates to a ma er where the decision has not been taken by the institution, shall be refused if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.”
“Zavrne se dostop do dokumenta, ki ga je institucij a sestavila za notranjo uporabo oziroma ga je dobila od druge institucij e in se nanaša na zadevo, o kateri institucij a še ni odločila, če bi razkritje dokumenta resno ogrozilo postopek sprejemanja odločitev institucije, razen če za razkritje obstaja pomembnejši javni interes.”
Access to Commission working documents
Dostop do delovnih dokumentov Komisij e
2.1 The complainant alleged that the Council’s reasoning does not justify its deletions of material from certain Commission working documents.
2.1 Pritožnica je trdila, da utemeljitev Sveta ne opraviči njegovih izbrisov dela gradiva iz nekaterih delovnih dokumentov Komisije.
The Ombudsman recalls that he has made a critical remark concerning the extent of the deletions made from the documents concerned.
Varuh opozarja na kritično pripombo, ki jo je podal v zvezi z obsegom izbrisov iz zadevnih dokumentov.
This aspect of the complainant thus concerns only whether the Council’s reasoning could have any application to Commission working documents.
Ta vidik pritožnice zadeva le to, ali bi lahko utemeljitev Sveta imela posledice za delovne dokumente Komisije. e.
2.2 The Council argued that the Commission documents concerned are non-papers prepared for discussion in the Council working group, which had neither been approved by the Commission at the level of the college of Commissioners nor were intended to commit it.
2.2 Svet je menil, da so zadevni dokumenti Komisij e pripravljeni v neuradni obliki, namenjeni razpravi v delovni skupini Sveta, ki jih Komisij a ni potrdila niti na ravni kolegija komisarjev niti ni bil njihov namen, da bi zavezovali.
2.3 In her observations, the complainant stated that she is willing to accept that Commission working documents prepared as contributions to the Council debate should be treated in the same way as Council documents.
2.3 V svojih pripombah je pritožnica navedla, da je pripravljena sprejeti dejstvo, da se delovni dokumenti Komisije, pripravljeni kot prispevek k razpravi v Svetu, obravnavajo enako kot dokumenti Sveta. Kaže, da je pritožnica ta del pritožbe opustila.
The Council’s online register of documents
Spletni register dokumentov Sveta
3.1 The complainant alleged that the Council’s online register of documents contains inadequate information.
Pritožnica je trdila, da spletni register dokumentov Sveta ne vsebuje dovolj informacij .
3.2 The Council argued that information about the originator and addressee of each document and a description of its category can be easily obtained through its online register of documents.
3.2 Svet je zagotovil, da je v spletnem registru dokumentov enostavno pridobiti informacij e o izvoru, naslovljencu in opisu kategorij e vsakega dokumenta.
The Council is prepared to examine the possibility of increasing the user-friendliness of the public register.
Svet je pripravljen preučiti možnost izboljšanja uporabniku prijaznega dostopa do javnega registra.
3.3 In her observations, the complainant stated that her remarks had been intended to be helpful and that she did not wish to pursue the issue.
3.3 V svojih pripombah je pritožnica pojasnila, da je bil namen njenih pripomb pomagati in da ne želi vztrajati pri tem vprašanju.
She also made a number of suggestions to enhance what she called this “uniquely valuable source of information.”
Podala je tudi nekaj predlogov, da bi se obogatil ta – kot ga je sama označila – “edinstveno dragoceni vir informacij”.
The Ombudsman forwarded the complainant’s suggestions to the Council, for information.
Svet je uredbo sprejel 16. decembra 2002: Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o izvajanju konkurenčnih predpisov, določenih v členih 81 in 82 Pogodbe, UL L1/1.