natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Ombudsman made a drarecommendation that, in future competitions, Parliament should inform candidates in the notices of competition that the names of successful candidates will be made public.
Varuh je v osnutku priporočila zapisal, da bi moral Parlament v prihodnjih izbirnih postopkih v razpisu kandidate obvestiti, da bodo imena uspešnih kandidatov objavljena.
Parliament’s detailed opinion did not clearly accept the dra recommendation.
Parlament se v podrobnem mnenju ni popolnoma strinjal z osnutkom priporočila.
Nor did the detailed opinion indicate that Parliament’s future actions would treat candidates fairly and ensure consistency with its commitment to openness in the recruitment process.
Prav tako v podrobnem mnenju ni jasno navedel, da bo v prihodnosti kandidate obravnaval pošteno in zagotovil doslednost v skladu z zavezo o javnosti zaposlitvenega procesa.
The Ombudsman therefore considered it his duty to make a Special Report on the ma er.
Varuh se je na podlagi tega odločil, da pripravi posebno poročilo o zadevi.
ANNUAL REPORT 2003
V pismu z dne 25. februarja 2003 je predsednik Evropskega parlamenta Varuha obvestil, da je Parlament sprejel Varuhov osnutek priporočila o objavi imen uspešnih kandidatov v izbirnih postopkih in sklenil to navesti v vseh razpisih.
3.6.2 The Council of the European Union
3.6.2 Svet Evropske unij e
ACCESS TO COUNCIL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING OPINIONS OF THE LEGAL SERVICE
DOSTOP DO DOKUMENTOV SVETA, VKLJUČNO Z MNENJI PRAVNE SLUŽBE
Summary of decision on complaint 1015/2002/(PB)IJH and note on complaint 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH against the Council of the European Union
Povzetek sklepa o pritožbi 1015/2002/(PB)IJH in pripomba k pritožbi 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH zoper Svet Evropske unij e
Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145 p. 43.
Uredba (ES) 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 glede dostopa javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, UL 2001 L 145 str. 43.
Decisions following an inquiry
Pritožnik jih je opisal, kot sledi:
– document 8002/01, containing legal draing remarks.
- dokument 8002/01 s pravnimi pripombami k osnutku.
The Council added that, apart from the document number and the subject of these legal opinions, the exception applies to their entire content.
Pripomnil je, da izjema velja za celotno vsebino razen za številko dokumenta in predmet pravnega mnenja.
It was therefore not possible to grant partial access on the basis of Article 4 (6) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Iz tega razloga ni bilo mogoče zagotoviti delnega dostopa na podlagi člena 4 (6) Uredbe 1049/2001.
On 7 February 2002, the complainant made a confirmatory application.
Pritožnik je 7. februarja 2002 vložil ponovno prošnjo.
As regards the lists of commi ees and working groups, he stated that the information sent to him by the Council was not comprehensive or structured in such a way as to enable identification of all commi ees or working groups and their members.
Glede seznamov odborov in delovnih skupin je navedel, da podatki, ki mu jih je poslal Svet, niso bili pregledni oziroma sestavljeni tako, da bi omogočali pregled vseh odborov ali delovnih skupin in njihovih članov.
The complainant also repeated his request for lists of those who, in the year 2000, received travel expenses and/or daily allowances from the Council or the Member States for a ending meetings at the European institutions.
Ponovno je zahteval sezname tistih, ki so leta 2000 od Sveta ali držav članic prejeli povračilo potnih stroškov in/ali dnevnic za udeležbo na sestankih evropskih institucij . Glede treh pravnih mnenj je pritožnik zahteval natančen razlog za zavrnitev dostopa.
Concerning the three legal opinions, the complainant asked for the specific grounds for refusing access.
Svet je odgovoril 8. aprila 2002. Ponovil je, da seznami odborov in delovnih skupin, ki jih zahteva pritožnik, ne obstajajo.
The requested lists of recipients of allowances do not exist either.
Tudi zahtevani seznam prejemnikov dnevnic ne obstaja.
The Council emphasised that rules of sound financial management are observed, and that the payment of allowances is subject to the scrutiny by the Court of Auditors.
Svet je poudaril, da upošteva pravila zdravega finančnega upravljanja, izplačila dnevnic pa nadzira Računsko sodišče.
As regards the three legal opinions, the Council repeated that Article 4 (2) of Regulation 1049/2001 requires that advice given by the Council’s Legal Service shall remain undisclosed unless on balance the institution is satisfied that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Glede treh pravnih mnenj je Svet ponovno poudaril, da se po členu 4 (2) Uredbe 1049/2001 nasveti pravne službe Sveta ne razkrijejo, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
The Council stated that an overriding public interest is not established by the fact that the legal opinions, as in this case, relate to the preparation of legislation.
Z vidika Sveta prevladujočega javnega interesa ni mogoče utemeljiti z dejstvom, da so pravna mnenja, kot v tem primeru, povezana s pripravo zakonodaje.
The Council supported its position by referring to case law under the former rules on public access to documents.
Svet je podprl svoje stališče s sklicevanjem na sodno prakso v skladu s prejšnjimi pravili o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov.
On the basis of the above, the complainant addressed the Ombudsman, making the following allegations against the Council:
Na podlagi zgoraj naštetega je pritožnik na Varuha naslovil naslednje ugovore zoper Svet:
It is contrary to good administration that the Council has not established a list of all commi ees and working groups in the European institutions where representatives of the Council and the Member States participate.
Svet ne vodi seznama vseh odborov in delovnih skupin v evropskih institucijah, v katerih sodelujejo predstavniki Sveta in držav članic, kar je v nasprotju z dobrim upravljanjem.
The list should include the names of the members of those commi ees and working groups;
Seznam bi moral vključevati tudi imena članov teh odborov in delovnih skupin.
It is contrary to good administration that the Council has not established or identified a list of all those persons who have received travel allowances and/or daily allowances from the Council or the Member States in the year 2000 for meetings in the European institutions;
Svet ni vzpostavil in naredil seznama vseh oseb, ki so od Sveta ali držav članic leta 2000 prejele povračilo potnih stroškov in/ali dnevnice za udeležbo na sestankih v evropskih institucijah, kar je v nasprotju z dobrim upravljanjem.
The Council wrongly rejected access to the legal opinions requested by the complainant.
Svet je neupravičeno zavrnil dostop do pravnih mnenj, ki ga je zahteval pritožnik.
In particular, the Council has breached the rules on public access to documents by rejecting access to the legal opinions as a ma er of general practice, whereas the rules require an individual assessment of each request.
Predvsem je Svet kršil pravila o javnem dostopu do dokumentov, saj je zavrnil dostop do pravnih mnenj kot stvar splošne prakse, čeprav pravila določajo posamezno presojo vsake prošnje.
Page 197
PREISKAVA
The Council’s opinion made, in summary, the following points:
Povzetek mnenja Sveta je naslednji:
List of commi ees and working groups
Seznam odborov in delovnih skupin
Regulation 1049/2001 concerns only existing documents.
Uredba 1049/2001 zadeva le obstoječe dokumente. Kadar pristojna institucij a izjavi, da dokument ne
In fact, the Council does keep a list of its own preparatory bodies. The list is publicly available on the Internet and was sent to the complainant.
To predpostavko lahko ovržejo ustrezni in trdni dokazi, ki v tem primeru niso bili predstavljeni.
As regards the names of delegates participating in the Council’s preparatory bodies, the composition of working parties is subject to continuous changes from one meeting to another and sometimes even during one meeting, as Member States are free to send the delegates of their choice.
Pritožnik ni navedel nobenega argumenta, zakaj bi moral Svet zaradi dobrega upravljanja sestaviti zahtevane sezname.
Keeping complete and up-to-date lists of all the participants would therefore pose a heavy administrative burden.
Svet v resnici vodi seznam svojih pripravljalnih teles, ki je javnosti dostopen na svetovnem spletu in je bil pritožniku poslan.
Such lists are neither necessary for the internal purposes of the General Secretariat, nor has it been demonstrated that there is any significant public interest in having this information.
Seznam zadostuje za upravne namene Sveta in javnosti omogoča celoten pregled vseh odborov in delovnih skupin, ki sodelujejo pri pripravi dela Sveta.
The Council repeated its earlier statements to the complainant. According to the Council, the Community’s financial interests are adequately safeguarded by the provisions and control bodies already in place.
Skupaj z javnim registrom dokumentov ta seznam omogoča državljanom tudi, da vložijo posebno prošnjo za dokumente, predložene tem odborom in delovnim skupinam.
It is therefore not necessary, in the interests of good administration, to keep the lists requested by the complainant.
Svet ne vidi potrebe po vodenju seznamov drugih odborov ali delovnih skupin, ki nimajo zveze z njegovim delom in v katerih sodelujejo predstavniki držav članic.
This view does not prejudice the individual examination of each document, with a view to determining whether disclosure is in fact likely to undermine one of the interests protected by the exceptions provided for, taking into account notably the possibility of granting partial access.
Glede imen delegatov, sodelujočih v pripravljalnih organih, se sestava delovnih skupin stalno spreminja od enega do drugega sestanka in včasih celo med sestankom, saj države članice lahko prosto pošiljajo delegate po svoji izbiri.
As for the remaining parts of the documents, the Council confirmed the refusal contained in its reply to the complainant’s confirmatory application.
Vodenje popolnih seznamov in sprememb vseh udeležencev bi bilo težko upravno breme.
The Council’s opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations if he so wished. No observations were received.
Taki seznami niso potrebni ne za notranje namene generalnega sekretariata, prav tako pa zanje do sedaj ni bilo posebnega interesa javnosti.
The dra recommendation
Seznami prejemnikov dnevnic
By decision dated 27 March 2003, the Ombudsman addressed a drarecommendation to the Council concerning the complainant’s third allegation.
Svet je pritožniku ponovil svoje prejšnje izjave.
The basis of the drarecommendation, made in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, was as follows:
Po njegovem mnenju finančne interese Skupnosti dovolj dobro varujejo obstoječe določbe in nadzorni organi, zato ni potrebe po vodenju seznamov v smislu dobrega upravljanja, kot zahteva pritožnik.
The complainant alleges that the Council wrongly rejected access to opinions of the Council Legal Service.
Pritožnik trdi, da je Svet neupravičeno zavrnil dostop do mnenj pravne službe Sveta.
He argues that the Council rejected access to the legal opinions as a ma er of general practice, whereas the rules require an individual assessment of each request.
Meni, da je Svet zavrnil dostop do pravnih mnenj kot del splošne prakse, medtem ko pravila zahtevajo individualno presojo vsake prošnje.
The Council argues that Article 4 (2) of Regulation 1049/2001 requires that advice given by the Council’s Legal Service shall remain undisclosed unless on balance the institution is satisfied that there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Svet se sklicuje na člen 4 (2) Uredbe 1049/2001, ki določa, da se nasveti pravne službe Sveta ne razkrijejo, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
In response to the complainant’s application and confirmatory application, the Council took the view that the exception applied to the entire content of the three legal opinions in question: documents 7594/00, 7184/01 and 8002/01.
V zvezi s pritožnikovo prošnjo in potrdilno prošnjo ta izjema po stališču Sveta velja za celotno vsebino treh zadevnih pravnih mnenj: dokumentov 7594/00, 7184/01 in 8002/01.
In its opinion on the present complaint, the Council states that its general position does not prejudice the individual examination of each document and that, upon re-examination, the Council decided to grant partial access to documents 7594/00 and 7184/01.
Svet je v mnenju navedel, da njegovo splošno stališče ne prejudicira posamične preučitve vsakega dokumenta in da se je ob ponovni preučitvi odločil odobriti delni dostop do dokumentov 7594/00 in 7184/01.
The Ombudsman notes that the refusal of public access to document 7594/00 is also the subject of another complaint made to the Ombudsman against the Council: 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH.
Varuh ugotavlja, da je zavrnitev dostopa javnosti do dokumenta 7594/00 predmet še ene pritožbe pri Varuhu: 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH.
In that case, the Ombudsman made a drarecommendation to the Council, followed on 12 December 2002 by a Special Report to the European Parliament. The European Parliament has not yet taken a position on the Special Report.
V tem primeru je Varuh pripravil osnutek priporočila Svetu, 12. decembra 2002 pa posebno poročilo Evropskemu parlamentu, vendar ta še ni zavzel stališča o njem.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified in the framework of the present complaint.
V teh okoliščinah Varuh meni, da nadaljnja preiskava v okviru sedanje pritožbe ni utemeljena.
The Ombudsman will however, inform the European Parliament that the Council has agreed to give the complainant in the present case partial access to document 7594/00.
Kljub temu bo Varuh Evropski parlament obvestil, da je Svet v sedanjem primeru odobril delni dostop pritožniku do dokumenta 7594/00.
As regards the other two documents, the Ombudsman recalls that the above-mentioned drarecommendation and Special Report are based on the view that a distinction should be drawn between different kinds of legal opinion.
Glede ostalih dveh dokumentov Varuh opozarja, da zgoraj omenjeni osnutek priporočila in posebno poročilo temeljita na stališču, ki zagovarja razlikovanje med različnimi vrstami pravnih mnenj.
Opinions given in the context of possible future court proceedings are analogous to a communication between a lawyer and a client. They should therefore normally be exempt from disclosure under Article 4 (2) of Regulation 1049/2001.
Mnenja v kontekstu morebitnega sodnega postopka so enaka odnosu med stranko in odvetnikom, zato so navadno izvzeta iz razkritja v skladu s členom 4(2) Uredbe 1049/2001.
In contrast, opinions on dra legislation should normally become available to the public when the legislative process has reached a conclusion.
Nasprotno so mnenja o osnutkih zakonodaje navadno dostopna javnosti po zaključku zakonodajnega postopka.
They should be exempt only if the institution can show, in accordance with Article 4 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001, that disclosure would seriously undermine its decision-making process and that there is no overriding public interest in disclosure.
Izvzamejo se le, kadar institucij a v skladu s členom 4 (3) Uredbe 1049/2001 dokaže, da bi njihovo razkritje resno ogrozilo proces odločanja in da za razkritje ni prevladujočega interesa javnosti.
Applying the above distinction to the present case, it appears that documents 7184/01 and 8002/01 are opinions on dralegislation and that the legislative process concerned has reached a conclusion.
Ob upoštevanju zgornje razlike v zadevnem primeru Varuh ugotavlja, da sta dokumenta 7184/01 in 8002/01 mnenji o osnutku zakonodaje in da je zakonodajni postopek že zaključen.
The Ombudsman therefore made a drarecommendation, similar to that previously made in case 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH, that the Council should reconsider the complainant’s application and give access to documents 7184/01 and 8002/01, unless one or more of the exceptions other than Article 4 (2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001 applies.
Varuh zato v osnutku priporočila, podobnem prejšnjemu v primeru 1542/2000/(PB)(SM)IJH, meni, naj Svet ponovno preuči prošnjo pritožnika in mu omogoči dostop do dokumentov 7184/01 in 8002/01, razen če za eno ali več izjem veljajo druga pravila kot druga alinea člena 4 (2) Uredbe 1049/2001.
The Council’s detailed opinion informed the Ombudsman that the question of whether and under what conditions opinions of the Council Legal Service relating to dra legislative acts are covered by the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, is currently the subject of the legal proceedings before the Court of First Instance (Case T84/03, Maurizio Turco v Council).
Svet je v podrobnem mnenju Evropskega varuha obvestil, da je vprašanje pod katerimi pogoji so mnenja pravne službe Sveta o zakonodajnih aktih pokrita z izjemami, ki jih določa Uredba 1049/2001, trenutno predmet sodnega postopka na Sodišču prve stopnje (primer T-84/03, Maurizio Turco v.
The Council therefore abstained from commenting on the substance of the dra recommendation.
Svet). Svet se zato vzdrži komentarjev o vsebini osnutka priporočila.
The Council’s detailed opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations if he so wished.
Podrobno mnenje Sveta je bilo posredovano pritožniku s pozivom, da predloži pripombe, če želi.
No observations were received.
Pritožnik ni podal pripomb.
1.1 The complainant alleges that it is contrary to good administration that the Council has not established a list of all the commi ees and working groups in the European institutions where
1.1 Z vidika pritožnika je v nasprotju z načeli dobrega upravljanja, da Svet ni sestavil seznama odborov in delovnih skupin v evropskih institucijah, v katerih sodelujejo predstavniki Sveta in držav članic.
The list should include the names of the members of those commi ees and working groups.
Seznam bi moral vsebovati tudi imena članov teh odborov in delovnih skupin.
1.2 According to the Council, there is no need for it to keep lists of commi ees or working groups that have nothing to do with its work.
1.2 Svet nasprotno trdi, da ni potrebe po vodenju seznama odborov in delovnih skupin, ki niso povezani z njegovim delom.
The Council keeps a list of its own preparatory bodies, which is adequate for the Council’s administrative purposes.
Svet vodi seznam svojih skupin, kar zadošča njegovim upravnim potrebam.
This list provides the public with a complete overview of all commi ees and working groups involved in the preparation of the Council’s work and, together with the public register of documents, enables citizens to make specific requests for documents.
Ta seznam omogoča javnosti popoln pregled vseh odborov in delovnih skupin, ki sodelujejo pri pripravi dela Sveta, skupaj z javnim registrom dokumentov pa dostop do specifičnih dokumentov.
As regards the inclusion of the names of delegates, the Council argues that keeping complete and up-to-date lists would be extremely cumbersome as the composition of working parties frequently changes.
Kar se tiče imenskih seznamov delegatov, Svet meni, da bi bilo izredno težko voditi popolne in tekoče sezname, saj se sestava delovnih skupin pogosto spreminja.
Such lists are neither necessary for the internal purposes of the General Secretariat, nor has it been demonstrated that there is any significant public interest in having this information.
Taki seznami niso potrebni ne za notranje namene generalnega sekretariata, niti ni zanje posebnega zanimanja javnosti.
1.3 The Ombudsman recalls the general principle of good administration that citizens should be provided with the information that they request.111The Ombudsman notes that the Council provides part of the information sought by the complainant in the form of a publicly available list of its own preparatory bodies.
1.3 Evropski varuh opozarja, da je treba v skladu s splošnimi načeli dobrega upravljanja državljanom dati na razpolago podatke, ki jih zahtevajo.111 Ugotavlja tudi, da Svet del podatkov,
In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council’s explanation of why it does not maintain the other lists sought by the complainant appears reasonable.
S stališča Evropskega varuha je obrazložitev Sveta, zakaj ne vodi drugih seznamov, ki jih zahteva pritožnik, smiselna.
The Ombudsman therefore fi finds no maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.
Evropski varuh zato glede tega dela pritožbe ne najde nepravilnosti.
Lists of recipients of allowances
Seznam prejemnikov dnevnic
2.1 The complainant alleges that it is contrary to good administration that the Council has not established or identified a list of all those persons who have received travel allowances and/or daily allowances from the Council or the Member States in the year 2000 for meetings in the European institutions.
2.1 Po mnenju pritožnika je v nasprotju z dobrim upravljanjem, da Sveta nima seznama oseb, ki so od Sveta ali držav članic v letu 2000 prejele povračilo potnih stroškov in/ali dnevnice za udeležbo v evropskih institucijah. ah.
2.2 According to the Council, it does not pay daily allowances to delegates and no lists of recipients of allowances exist.
2.2 Svet je izjavil, da delegatom ne izplačuje dnevnic in da tak seznam prejemnikov ne obstaja.
The Council argues that the Community’s financial interests are adequately safeguarded by the provisions and control bodies already in place and that it is therefore unnecessary, in the interests of good administration, to keep the lists requested by the complainant.
Nadalje trdi, da finančne interese Skupnosti zadovoljivo varujejo ustrezni predpisi in nadzorni organi, zato z vidika načel dobrega upravljanja ni potrebe po vodenju seznama, ki ga zahteva pritožnik.
2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complaint refers to travel allowances and daily allowances paid either by the Council, or by the Member States.
2.3 Evropski varuh je opazil, da je pritožnik omenil nadomestilo potnih stroškov in dnevnic, ki jih plačajo Svet ali države članice.
As regards travel allowances and daily allowances paid by the Member States, the Ombudsman is not aware of any rule or principle which would require the Council to maintain lists of the recipients of such allowances.
V zvezi z nadomestilom potnih stroškov in dnevnic, ki jih krijejo države članice, Evropski varuh ne pozna pravila ali načela, v skladu s katerim bi moral Svet voditi sezname takšnih prejemnikov.
2.4 As regards travel allowances paid by the Council, the Ombudsman notes that the Council denies that a list of recipients exists.
2.4 Glede nadomestil potnih stroškov, ki jih izplačuje Svet, Evropski varuh ugotavlja, da Svet zanika obstoj seznama prejemnikov takšnih nadomestil.
The Ombudsman recognises that the establishment of such a list and its public availability could promote greater accountability by enabling citizens to carry out genuine and efficient monitoring of the exercise of the powers vested in the Community institutions, and thereby increase confidence in the administration.
Varuh se zaveda, da bi vzpostavitev takšnega seznama in njegova dostopnosti javnosti pripomogla k večji odgovornosti, saj bi državljanom omogočila učinkovit nadzor izvrševanja nalog v institucijah Skupnosti in s tem povečala zaupanje v njegovo upravo.
The Ombudsman is not aware however of any rule or principle binding on the Council which could justify a finding that failure to maintain such a list is maladministration.
Kljub temu Evropski varuh ne pozna pravila ali načela, ki bi Svet zavezoval k vodenju takega seznama in dal podlago za ugotovitev, da gre v nasprotnem primeru za nepravilnost.
The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.
Evropski varuh zato v tem delu pritožbe ne najde nepravilnosti.
Access to legal opinions
Dostop do pravnih mnenj
3.1 The complainant alleges that the Council wrongly rejected his application for access to opinions of the Council Legal Service.
3.1 Pritožnik trdi, da je Svet neupravičeno zavrnil njegovo prošnjo za dostop do mnenj Pravne službe Sveta.