natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For that purpose, the second part of the Green Paper contained a questionnaire, through which the Commission sought the views on the public on the regime for obtaining access to documents of the European institutions and invited citizens, including civil society organisations, economic operators, public authorities and other organisations with an interest in European affairs to react to the different options set out in the Green Paper.
Drugi del Zelene knjige je v ta namen vseboval vprašalnik, s katerim je Komisija želela zbrati stališča javnosti o ureditvi dostopa do dokumentov evropskih institucij, državljane, vključno z organizacijami civilne družbe, gospodarskimi subjekti, javnimi organi in drugimi organizacijami, ki se zanimajo za evropske zadeve, pa pozvala, naj se odzovejo na različne možnosti, predstavljene v Zeleni knjigi.
COM(2007) 185 of 18 April 2007, Green Paper: Public Access to Documents held by institutions of the European Community – A review.
COM (2007) 185, z dne 18. aprila 2007 – Zelena knjiga: Dostop javnosti do dokumentov, ki jih hranijo institucije Evropske skupnosti – Pregled.
During the consultation period, which lasted until 31 July 2007, the Commission received a total of eightyone contributions to the Green Paper, from civil society (30), public authorities (25), the corporate world (14), and individual citizens (12).
V obdobju posvetovanja, ki je trajalo do 31. julija 2007, je Komisija prejela skupno 81 prispevkov za Zeleno knjigo, in sicer od civilne družbe (30), javnih organov (25), gospodarstva (14) in posameznikov (12).
The outcome of the consultation was subsequently summarised in a
Izid posvetovanja je Komisija nato povzela v delovnem dokumentu osebja Komisije, objavljenem
Commission staff working document published in January 200821, which inter alia contained the following findings:
, v katerem so med drugim navedene naslednje ugotovitve:
The vast majority of the respondents would prefer the public registers and web-sites of the institutions to be more harmonised and easier to access.
Velika večina sodelujočih je menila, da bi morali biti javni registri in spletna mesta institucij bolj usklajena, dostop do njih pa lažji.
As regards the issue of striking the balance between the principle of transparency and the protection of personal data and/or between transparency and the protection of commercial and economic interests, many respondents, in particular NGO's and journalists, claimed that more weight should be given to the interest in disclosure.
Kar zadeva vprašanje pravega ravnovesja med načelom preglednosti in varstvom osebnih podatkov in /ali med preglednostjo in varstvom poslovnih in ekonomskih interesov, je veliko sodelujočih, zlasti nevladne organizacije in novinarji, menilo, da bi bilo treba interesu za razkritje dati večji pomen.
In this latter context, industry called for better protection of business information.
V okviru slednjega so predstavniki industrije pozvali k boljšemu varstvu poslovnih informacij.
A possible harmonisation of the rules on access to documents as contained in Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 with the rules on access to environmental information set out in Regulation (EC) 1367/2006 (implementing the Århus Convention) was widely supported by public bodies and individual citizens.
Javni organi in posamezniki so vsesplošno podprli morebitno uskladitev pravil o dostopu do dokumentov iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 s pravili o dostopu do informacij o okolju iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1367/2006 (izvajanje Aarhuške konvencije).
By contrast, environmental NGOs had some concern that such an alignment might lower the transparency standard for environmental matters, while the chemical and biotechnological industries considered that the Århus provisions should remain a "lex specialis" vis-à-vis the general rules on public access.
Nasprotno je okoljske nevladne organizacije skrbelo, da bi takšna uskladitev lahko znižala raven preglednosti za okoljske zadeve, kemični in biotehnološki sektor pa sta menila, da bi morale aarhuške določbe ostati lex specialis v razmerju do splošnih pravil o dostopu javnosti.
The Commission is expected to submit a proposal for the amendment of Regulation 1049/2001 to the European Parliament and the Council in the course of the second quarter of 2008.
Komisija naj bi Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu v drugem četrtletju leta 2008 predložila predlog za spremembo Uredbe 1049/2001.
See Commission staff working document SEC (2008) 29/2 of 16 January 2008 : Report on the Outcome of the Public Consultation on the Review of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Glej delovni dokument osebja Komisije SEC (2008) 29/2 z dne 16. januarja 2008: Poročilo o izidu javnega posvetovanja o pregledu Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
An Interinstitutional Committee to examine best practice, address possible conflicts and discuss future developments on public access to documents was established in 2002 under Article 15(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Leta 2002 je bil v skladu s členom 15(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 ustanovljen medinstitucionalni odbor, ki preučuje najboljše prakse, obravnava morebitne spore in razpravlja o nadaljnjem razvoju na področju dostopa do dokumentov.
At its latest meeting at political level, which took place on 2 October 2007, the Committee had an exchange of views on the results of the public consultation on the review of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the basis of an oral presentation by the European Commission.
Na zadnjem sestanku na politični ravni 2. oktobra 2007 je odbor na podlagi ustne predstavitve Evropske komisije izmenjal mnenja o izidu javnega posvetovanja o pregledu Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001.
The discussion was concentrated on the main topics, which had been the subject of the public consultation, and on the need for increasing the userfriendliness of the public registers of the three institutions, notably through the creation of a common Internet portal.
Na razpravi so obravnavali glavne teme, ki so bile predmet javnega posvetovanja, in potrebo po tem, da bi javni registri treh institucij postali prijaznejši do uporabnika, zlasti z oblikovanjem skupnega spletnega portala.
Presidency report on the implementation of the overall policy on transparency22
Poročilo predsedstva o izvajanju splošne politike preglednosti22
In June 2006, the European Council adopted an overall policy on transparency
Evropski svet je junija 2006 sprejel splošno politiko preglednosti sta, da se razprave Sveta v okviru postopka soodločanja odprejo za javnost in da se redno organizirajo javna izražanja stališč o pomembnih vprašanjih, ki zadevajo interese Unije in njenih državljanov24.
In December 2007, the Presidency submitted a report to the Council on the implementation of the overall policy on transparency and assessment of its impact on the effectiveness of the Council's work25.
Decembra 2007 je predsedstvo Svetu predložilo poročilo o izvajanju splošne politike preglednosti ter presojo njenih vplivov na učinkovitost delovanja Sveta25.
Although the issue of public access to the decisionmaking process of the Council is not in itself covered by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 nor, for that matter, by Article 255 of the EC Treaty, it is useful to sketch the developments in other areas of transparency within the framework of this report.
Čeprav vprašanje dostopa javnosti do postopka odločanja Sveta ni zajeto v Uredbi (ES) št. 1049/2001 niti v členu 255 Pogodbe ES, bi bilo primerno v okviru tega poročila orisati razmere na drugih področjih preglednosti. Glej dokument 10633/06, str.
Article 8 of the Council's Rules of Procedure has been amended to this end. Cf.
23–24, pa tudi letno poročilo Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov – 2006, str. 17–18.
Council Decision 2006/683/EC,Euratom of 15 September 2006 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure, OJ L 285, 16.10.2006, p. 47.
Glej Sklep Sveta 2006/683/ES,Euratom z dne 15. septembra 2006 o sprejetju poslovnika Sveta, UL L 285, 16.10.2006, str. 47.
Following a Coreper decision to that effect, the organisation of public deliberations and debates in the Council as provided for in the amended version of Article 8 were applied as from the 1 July 2006, i.e. even before the formal adoption of the amended Rules of Procedure by the General Affairs Council on 15 September 2006.
V skladu z odločitvijo, ki jo je v ta namen sprejel Coreper, se je organizacija javnih razprav in javnega izražanja stališč v Svetu, kakor je predvidena v spremenjeni različici člena 8, začela uporabljati od 1. julija 2006, tj. še pred uradnim sprejetjem spremenjenega poslovnika s strani Sveta za splošne zadeve 15. septembra 2006.
See 15827/07 and 15828/07.
Glej 15827/07 in 15828/07.
While the new transparency measures did not appear to have had a negative impact on the Council's work ability to take decisions26, their implementation had, on the other hand, led to a marked increase in the
Kot kaže, novi ukrepi za preglednost niso imeli negativnega vpliva na delovno sposobnost odločanja v Svetu26, njihovo izvajanje pa je po drugi strani povzročilo opazno povečanje števila javnih razprav in
28 the European Union on the Council's Internet website
28 jezikih Evropske unije
See 15828/07, p. 5.
Glej 15828/07, str.5.
The findings of the report were based on data concerning the period 1 July 2006 - 31 October 2007.
Ugotovitve poročila temeljijo na podatkih za obdobje od 1. julija 2006 do 31. oktobra 2007.
When compared to the previous four-year period (1 July 2002 - 30 June 2006), where the access to the decisionmaking process of the Council where governed by the principles established by the Seville European Council (the so-called "Seville regime"), the increase was particularly significant as regards the number of legislative files dealt with as "B" items.
V primerjavi s predhodnim štiriletnim obdobjem (1. julij 2002–30. junij 2006), ko so odstop do postopka odločanja v Svetu urejala načela, ki jih je določil Evropski svet v Sevilli (t.i. "ureditev iz Seville"), se je še zlasti povečalo število zakonodajnih zadev, ki se obravnavajo kot točke pod "B".
Altogether 60 % of the legislative "B" items examined by the Council since 1 July 2006 were dealt with in public, whereas only 21 % of such items had been discussed in public during the previous period (July 2002 - June 2006).
Svet je od 1. julija 2006 javno preučil 60 % zakonodajnih točk pod "B", v prejšnjem obdobju (julij 2002–junij 2006) pa se je javno razpravljalo le o 21 % teh točk.
Moreover, a total of 70 public debates, including 64 debates on important issues affecting the interests of the European Union and its citizens, were held during the examined 16 months period, whereas only 33 such debates had taken place during the preceding four-year period.
Poleg tega je bilo v obravnavanem 16-mesečnem obdobju 70 javnih razprav, vključno s 64 razpravami o pomembnih vprašanjih, ki zadevajo interese Evropske unije in njenih državljanov, v prejšnjem štiriletnem obdobju pa je bilo tovrstnih razprav le 33.
See, in particular, Article 11(5) of Annex II to the Council's Rules of Procedure, OJ L 285, 16.10.2006, pp. 63-64.
Glej zlasti člen 11(5) priloge II poslovnika Sveta, UL L 285, 16.10.2006, str. 63–64.
COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
PRITOŽBA, NASLOVLJENA NA EVROPSKEGA VARUHA ČLOVEKOVIH PRAVIC
No complaint was lodged concerning the Council's application of Regulation No 1049/2001 in 2007.
V zvezi z izvajanjem Uredbe št. 1049/2001 s strani Sveta v letu 2007 ni bilo vložene nobene pritožbe.
The following section of this report refers briefly to an earlier complaint lodged in 2006 and closed in June 2007.
Naslednji del tega poročila na kratko obravnava predhodno pritožbo, ki je bila vložena leta 2006 in zaključena junija 2007.
Complaint 386/2006/BM, submitted to the Ombudsman on 8 February 2006
Pritožba 386/2006/BM, predložena varuhu 8. februarja 2006
This complaint, which was already examined in the Council's Annual Report covering the year 2006, concerns the Council's refusal to grant full access to document 15066/05, containing at annex a summary of decisions taken during the 30th meeting of the Administrative Board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Trade marks and Designs) held in Alicante on 23 November 2005, and a list of candidates selected for the post of President of the Boards of Appeal.
Ta pritožba, ki je že bila predmet letnega poročila Sveta za leto 2006, se nanaša na zavrnitev popolnega dostopa do dokumenta 15066/05 s strani Sveta, ki v prilogi vsebuje povzetek odločitev, sprejetih na 30. seji upravnega odbora Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (UUNT) (znamke in modeli) v Alicanteju 23. novembra 2005, ter seznam izbranih kandidatov za mesto predsednika odbora za pritožbe.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Council's decision not to grant him access to the results of the selection process for the position of President of the Appeal Chambers in the OHIM was unjustified and insisted on obtaining access to the document, showing his name anywhere it might appear and omitting only the names of other shortlisted candidates.
V pritožbi, naslovljeni na varuha, je pritožnik navedel, da je odločitev Sveta, da mu zavrne dostop do izida izbirnega postopka za mesto predsednika odbora za pritožbe UUNT neutemeljena, in vztrajal pri zahtevi za dostop do dokumenta, pri čemer naj se prikaže njegovo ime, kjer koli se nahaja, izpustijo pa naj se imena drugih kandidatov na seznamu.
The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsman, that he would be willing to accept that, if the Council gave him partial access to a document containing information about himself, it would be obliged to provide the same partial access to any other person in accordance with Regulation 1049/2001.
Pritožnik je varuhu naknadno sporočil, da bi bil pripravljen sprejeti dejstvo, da bi moral v primeru, če Svet njemu dovoli delni dostop do dokumenta, ki vsebuje informacije o njem samem, enak delni dostop dovoliti tudi kateri koli drugi osebi v skladu z Uredbo 1049/2001.
Against this background, the Council re-consulted OHIM in order to determine whether the additional information provided to the Ombudsman by the complainant would allow it to provide more information, although this issue strictly speaking went beyond the scope of his complaint.
Glede na navedeno se je Svet znova posvetoval z UUNT, da bi ugotovil, ali bi dodatne informacije, ki jih je pritožnik posredoval varuhu, Svetu omogočile zagotoviti več informacij, čeprav strogo gledano to vprašanje ne spada v obseg pritožbe.
Following this reconsultation, and given that the complainant seemed to be mostly interested in knowing whether he was one of the three candidates named in the document and how many votes he obtained, the Council could inform the complainant that he was not mentioned in the document.
Na podlagi tega ponovnega posvetovanja in glede na to, da je želel pritožnik vedeti predvsem to, ali je bil on eden izmed treh kandidatov, imenovanih v dokumentu, in koliko glasov je prejel, je Svet lahko sporočil pritožniku, da v dokumentu ni bil omenjen.
On 21 June 2007, the Ombudsman closed the case, considering that it was not necessary to make further inquiries into the complaint.
Glede na to, da v zvezi s to pritožbo niso bila potrebna nadaljnja poizvedovanja, je varuh 21. junija 2007 zadevo zaključil.
Rulings given under the rules on access to documents
Odločbe sodišča v skladu s predpisi o dostopu do dokumentov
In 2007, three rulings were given by the Community Courts in cases concerning access to Council documents.
V letu 2007 so sodišča Skupnosti izdala tri odločbe v zadevah v zvezi z dostopom do dokumentov Sveta.
On 1 February 2007, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in case C-266/05 P (José María Sisón v. Council), which was already dealt with at some length in the Council's previous report on access to
Sodišče je 1. februarja 2007 izdalo sodbo v zadevi C-266/05 P (José María Sisón proti Svetu), ki je že bila precej podrobno obravnavana v prejšnjem poročilu Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov; bralec naj se
29 documents, to which the reader is therefore referred
29 zato seznani s tem poročilom.
The two remaining rulings of 25 April and 27 November 2007 were given by the Court of First Instance in case T-264/04 (WWF-EPO v. Council) and in joined cases T-3/00 et T-337/04 (Pitsiorlas v. Council and ECB).
Ostali dve odločbi je 25. aprila in 27. novembra 2007 izdalo Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevah T-264/04 (WWF-EPO proti Svetu) in v združenih zadevah T-3/00 in T-337/04 (Pitsiorlas proti Svetu in ECB).
In case T-264/04, the applicant, the World Wide Fund for Nature European Policy Programme (WWF-EPO), had brought proceedings for annulment of the Council's decision of 30 April 2004 refusing it access to Council documents concerning the state of the multilateral negotiations on "Sustainability and Trade" to be conducted within the framework of WTO and the proceedings of the Article 133 Committee (Deputies) of 19 December 2003.
V zadevi T-264/04 je tožnik Svetovni sklad za naravo – program evropske politike (WWF-EPO) sprožil postopek za razveljavitev odločitve Sveta z dne 30. aprila 2004, s katero mu je bil zavrnjen dostop do dokumentov Sveta v zvezi s stanjem mednarodnih pogajanj v okviru STO o "trajnostnem razvoju in trgovini" in posvetovanji v okviru Odbora iz člena 133 (namestniki) z dne 19. decembra 2003. WWF-EPO je tožbo podprl s tremi ugovori:
Firstly, it contested the Council's decision to refuse access to a note from the Commission to the Council's Article 133 Committee concerning the state of play of the WTO-negotiations on environment and trade, following the WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun in September 2003.
Prvič, izpodbijal je odločitev Sveta, da zavrne dostop do opombe, ki jo je Komisija poslala Odboru iz člena 133 o trenutnem stanju pogajanj o okolju in trgovini v okviru STO po ministrski konferenci v Cancunu septembra 2003.
The applicant submitted, in this regard, that the Council had failed to state adequate reasons for its refusal to grant access to the Commission's note, and argued, moreover, that the Council should have balanced the citizen's right of access against the Council's interest to maintain confidentiality.
Tožnik je v zvezi s tem navedel, da Svet ni primerno obrazložil svoje zavrnitve dostopa do opombe Komisije; poleg tega je poudaril, da bi moral Svet uskladiti pravico državljanov do dostopa z interesom Sveta, da ohrani tajnost.
See the Council Annual report on access to documents - 2006, pp. 23-26.
Glej letno poročilo Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov za leto 2006, str. 23–26.
Secondly, the applicant submitted that the Council had infringed upon Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by failing to apply properly the principle of proportionality in assessing the possibility of partial disclosure.
Drugič, tožnik je navedel, da je Svet kršil člen 4(6) Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001 s tem, ko pri presoji možnosti delnega razkritja ni pravilno uporabil načela sorazmernosti.
The third plea, by which the applicant argued that Article 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 had been infringed, consisted of three parts, alleging,
Tretji ugovor, v katerem je tožnik trdil, da je bil kršen člen 2 Uredbe 1049/2001, je bil sestavljen iz treh delov:
• first, failure by the Council to grant access to the minutes relating to the first item on the Agenda of the Article 133 Committee of 19 December 2003 on the grounds that there were no such minutes, second, refusal by the Council, in the absence of any minutes, to provide the applicant with information on the content of the discussions of the above-mentioned agenda item in a form capable of being disseminated, and third, refusal by the Council to grant access to the records of those in attendance at the Committee meeting of 19 December 2003.
• prvi del se je nanašal na to, da je Svet zavrnil dostop do zapisnika o prvi točki dnevnega reda seje Odbora iz člena 133 z dne 19. decembra 2003, češ da tak zapisnik ne obstaja; drugi del se je nanašal na to, da je Svet glede na to, da zapisnika ni, zavrnil posredovanje informacij tožniku o vsebini razprave v zvezi z navedeno točko dnevnega reda v taki obliki, ki omogoča njihovo razširjanje, in tretji del se je nanašal na to, da je Svet zavrnil dostop do zapiskov udeležencev seje odbora z dne 19. decembra 2003.
In its judgment, the Court of First Instance rejected the three pleas and dismissed the action in its entirety.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v svoji sodbi zavrnilo te tri ugovore in pritožbo v celoti zavrnilo.
Thus, the Court of First Instance took the view, that in its decision of 30 April 2004, the Council had given sufficient reasons for its refusal to grant access to the note and, secondly, not misinterpreted the conditions for applying the exceptions to public access to documents laid down in the third and fourth indents of Article
Sodišče prve stopnje je torej menilo, da je Svet v svoji odločitvi z dne 30. aprila 2004 ustrezno obrazložil zavrnitev dostopa do opombe in da ni napačno razlagal pogojev za uporabo izjem glede dostopa javnosti do dokumentov iz člena 4(1)(a), tretja in četrta alinea, Uredbe št. 1049/2001.30
Pursuant to established case-law on access to documents, the Court's review of the legality of the institutions' decisions refusing access to documents on the basis of the mandatory exceptions relating to the public interest, laid down in Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be limited to verifying whether the procedural rules and the duty to state reasons have been complied with, the facts have been accurately stated, and whether there has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts or a misuse of powers.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso o dostopu do dokumentov mora biti nadzor Sodišča nad zakonitostjo odločitev institucij, s katerimi se zavrne dostop do dokumentov zaradi obveznih izjem v zvezi z javnim interesom, določenih v členu 4(1)(a) Uredbe št. 1049/2001, omejen na preverjanje spoštovanja postopkovnih pravil in obveznosti obrazložitve, pravilnosti navedenih dejstev in to, da ni očitnih napak pri presoji dejstev ali zlorabe pooblastil.
In the present case, the Court found that in considering that disclosure of the Commission's note could have undermined relations with third countries referred to in the note as well as the room for negotiation needed by the Community and its Member States to bring the WTO-negotiations to a conclusion, the Council did not commit a manifest error of assessment and was right to consider that disclosure of the note would have entailed the risk of undermining the public interest as regards international relations and the Community's financial, monetary and economic policy.
V tem primeru je Sodišče ugotovilo, da je Svet s tem, ko je menil, da bi razkritje opombe Komisije lahko oslabilo odnose s tretjimi državami, ki so v njej omenjene, ter pogajalski prostor Skupnosti in njenih držav članic, ki je potreben za to, da se pogajanja privedejo do konca, ni očitno nepravilno ugotovil dejanskega stanja in je lahko ugotovil, da bi zaradi sporočitve zapisa obstajala nevarnost za oslabitev javnega interesa, kar zadeva mednarodne odnose in finančno, denarno ali gospodarsko politiko Skupnosti.
Moreover, since the exceptions at issue in the dispute fell under Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Council was not required in the case at hand to balance the protection of the public interest against the applicant's interest in gaining access to the note, the applicant's claim that its interest in having access to the note should have been balanced against the Council's interest in not disclosing it therefore had to be dismissed.
Ker se za v tem sporu obravnavane izjeme uporablja člen 4(1) Uredbe št. 1049/2001, Svet v obravnavanem primeru ni bil dolžan tehtati med varstvom javnega interesa in interesom tožnika za dostop do opombe; zato je morala biti zavrnjena trditev tožnika, da bi moral Svet pretehtati med interesom prosilca za dostop do zapisa in interesom Sveta, da vsebine zapisa ne posreduje.