natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If that is not the case, it is, at the very least, incumbent on the applicant to show that, having regard to the specific facts of the case, the invocation of those same principles is so pressing that it overrides the need to protect the document in question.
Sicer mora prosilec dokazati vsaj to, da glede na posebne okoli�čine primera sklicevanje na ta ista načela pomeni ostrino, ki presega potrebo po varstvu spornega dokumenta.
That is not, however, the case here.
V tem primeru ni tako.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed the application in so far as it related to the refusal of access to the legal opinion in question.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato zavrnilo tožbo v delu, v katerem je bil zavrnjen dostop do spornega pravnega mnenja.
Procedure before the Court and forms of order sought by the parties
Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank
The Kingdom of Sweden also requests that the Court itself give judgment in the matter by annulling the contested decision.
Kraljevina Švedska poleg tega Sodi�ču predlaga, naj samo odloči o tožbi in razglasi sporno odločbo za nično.
Mr Turco on the other hand, asks that, if necessary, the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
Nasprotno pa M. Turco predlaga, naj se zadeva vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, če se izkaže, da je to potrebno.
By order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2005, the two appeals were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and the judgment.
Pritožbi sta bili s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 19. aprila 2005 združeni za pisni in ustni postopek ter izdajo sodbe.
The Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland submit that the appeals should be upheld.
Kraljevina Danska, Kraljevina Nizozemska in Republika Finska predlagajo, naj se pritožbama ugodi.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Council and the Commission contend that the appeals should be dismissed.
Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska, Svet ter Komisija predlagajo, naj se pritožbi zavrneta.
The appeals
Pritožbi
The appeals put forward five pleas in law, the first three of which refer to the three parts of the plea in law relied on by Mr Turco at first instance.
V pritožbah je navedenih pet pritožbenih razlogov, od katerih se prvi trije nana�ajo na tri točke tožbenega razloga, ki ga je uveljavljal M. Turco na prvi stopnji.
The final two pleas in law raised by Mr Turco rely, respectively, on the principle that the Community legal order is based on the rule of law and a failure on the part of the Court of First Instance to give sufficient reasons for the judgment under appeal.
Zadnja pritožbena razloga, ki jih navaja M. Turco, se nana�ata na načelo, da pravni red Skupnosti temelji na pravnih pravilih, in na to, da je bila sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje pomanjkljivo obrazložena.
Before dealing with the pleas relied on in support of the appeals, it is necessary to consider the relevant rules relating, first, to the examination to be undertaken by the Council where disclosure of an opinion of its legal service relating to a legislative process is requested and, secondly, to the statement of reasons which the Council must provide in order to justify any refusal to disclose.
Preden se bodo obravnavali pritožbeni razlogi, navedeni v utemeljitev pritožb, je treba opozoriti na ustrezna pravila glede preučitve, ki jo mora opraviti Svet, ko se zahteva razkritje mnenja njegove pravne službe v zvezi z zakonodajnim postopkom, in glede obrazložitve, ki jo mora podati, da utemelji morebitno zavrnitev razkritja.
The examination to be undertaken by the institution
Preučitev, ki jo mora opraviti institucija
Regulation No 1049/2001 seeks, as indicated in recital 4 of the preamble and Article 1, to give the public a right of access to documents of the institutions which is as wide as possible.
Namen Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 je, kot izhaja iz njene uvodne izjave 4 in njenega člena 1, zagotoviti javnosti pravico do čim �ir�ega dostopa do dokumentov institucij.
As appears from recital 1 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, that regulation reflects the intention expressed in the second paragraph of Article 1 of the EU Treaty, which was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam, to mark a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.
S to uredbo je v skladu z njeno uvodno izjavo 1 izražena volja iz člena 1, drugi odstavek, Pogodbe EU, ki je bil vstavljen z Amsterdamsko pogodbo, da se označi nova stopnja v procesu oblikovanja vse tesnej�e zveze med narodi Evrope, v kateri se odločitve sprejemajo čim bolj javno in v kar najtesnej�i povezavi z državljani.
As recital 2 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001 notes, the right of public access to documents of the institutions is related to the democratic nature of those institutions.
Kot je opozorjeno v uvodni izjavi 2 navedene uredbe, je pravica dostopa javnosti do dokumentov institucij povezana z demokratičnostjo slednjih.
When the Council is asked to disclose a document, it must assess, in each individual case, whether that document falls within the exceptions to the right of public access to documents of the institutions set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Ko se pri Svetu zahteva razkritje dokumenta, mora Svet v vsakem posameznem primeru presoditi, ali za ta dokument veljajo izjeme od pravice javnosti do dostopa do dokumentov institucij, ki so na�tete v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
In view of the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1049/2001, those exceptions must be interpreted and applied strictly (see Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission and Others [2007] ECR I-11389, paragraph 66).
Ob upo�tevanju ciljev, ki se jim sledi s to uredbo, je treba te izjeme razlagati in uporabljati strogo (glej sodbo z dne 18. decembra 2007 v zadevi Švedska proti Komisiji in drugim, C-64/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-11389, točka 66).
As regards the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, the examination to be undertaken by the Council when it is asked to disclose a document must necessarily be carried out in three stages, corresponding to the three criteria in that provision.
Glede izjeme v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti, predvidene v členu 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, mora preučitev, ki jo opravi Svet, ko se od njega zahteva razkritje dokumenta, potekati v treh fazah, kar ustreza trem merilom iz te določbe.
First, the Council must satisfy itself that the document which it is asked to disclose does indeed relate to legal advice and, if so, it must decide which parts of it are actually concerned and may, therefore, be covered by that exception.
Prvič mora Svet preveriti, ali se dokument, katerega razkritje se zahteva, nana�a na pravne nasvete in, če se, določiti, kateri njegovi deli ustrezajo in lahko torej spadajo na področje uporabe navedene izjeme.
The fact that a document is headed ‘legal advice/opinion’ does not mean that it is automatically entitled to the protection of legal advice ensured by the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Dejstvo, da je dokument naslovljen „pravno mnenje“, namreč ne pomeni, da je samodejno upravičen do varstva pravnih nasvetov iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
Second, the Council must examine whether disclosure of the parts of the document in question which have been identified as relating to legal advice ‘would undermine the protection’ of that advice.
Drugič mora Svet preučiti, ali bi razkritje delov zadevnega dokumenta, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da se nana�ajo na pravne nasvete, „oslabilo varstvo“ slednjih.
Therefore, that term must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.
Zato ga je treba razlagati glede na sistematičnost in namen ureditve, katere del je.
Consequently, the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be construed as aiming to protect an institution’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice.
Izjemo v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 je torej treba razlagati tako, da je njen namen varovati interes institucije, da zahteva pravne nasvete in prejme odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete.
Third and last, if the Council takes the view that disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of legal advice as defined above, it is incumbent on the Council to ascertain whether there is any overriding public interest justifying disclosure despite the fact that its ability to seek legal advice and receive frank, objective and comprehensive advice would thereby be undermined.
Tretjič, če Svet meni, da bi razkritje dokumenta oslabilo varstvo pravnih nasvetov, kot je opredeljeno zgoraj, mora preveriti, ali obstaja javni interes, ki prevlada in utemelji to razkritje, ne glede na poseg v njegovo možnost zahtevati pravne nasvete in prejeti odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete.
In that respect, it is for the Council to balance the particular interest to be protected by nondisclosure of the document concerned against, inter alia, the public interest in the document being made accessible in the light of the advantages stemming, as noted in recital 2 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, from increased openness, in that this enables citizens to participate more closely in the decisionmaking process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system.
V tem okviru mora Svet uravnotežiti poseben interes, ki ga je treba varovati z nerazkritjem zadevnega dokumenta, in med drugim javni interes, da se omogoči dostop do dokumenta ob upo�tevanju prednosti, ki izhajajo, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi 2 Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, iz povečane preglednosti, to je tesnej�ega sodelovanja državljanov v postopku odločanja in večje zakonitosti v upravi ter njeno učinkovitej�e in odgovornej�e ravnanje v razmerju do državljanov v demokratičnem sistemu.
It is also worth noting that, under the second subparagraph of Article 207(3) EC, the Council is required to define the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity, with a view to allowing greater access to documents in such cases.
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da mora Svet na podlagi člena 207(3), drugi pododstavek, ES določiti primere, v katerih ga je treba obravnavati kot zakonodajni organ, da bi bil v teh primerih omogočen bolj�i dostop do dokumentov. Prav tako je v členu 12(2) Uredbe �t.
Similarly, Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 acknowledges the specific nature of the legislative process by providing that documents drawn up or received in the course of procedures for the adoption of acts which are legally binding in or for the Member States should be made directly accessible.
1049/2001 priznana posebnost zakonodajnega postopka s tem, da je v njem določeno, da morajo biti dokumenti, pripravljeni ali prejeti med postopki za sprejetje aktov, ki so pravno zavezujoči v državah članicah ali zanje, neposredno dostopni.
The reasons for any decision of the Council in respect of the exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 must be stated.
Vsaka odločba Sveta na podlagi izjem, na�tetih v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, mora biti obrazložena.
If the Council decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must explain, first, how access to that document could specifically and effectively undermine the interest protected by an exception laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 relied on by that institution and, secondly, in the situations referred to in Article 4(2) and (3) of that regulation, whether or not there is an overriding public interest that might nevertheless justify disclosure of the document concerned.
Če Svet odloči, da se zavrne dostop do dokumenta, katerega razkritje se je zahtevalo, mora podati pojasnila prvič v zvezi s tem, kako bi lahko dostop do tega dokumenta konkretno in dejansko posegel v interes, ki je varovan z izjemo iz člena 4 Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, na kar se sklicuje ta institucija, in drugič, v primerih iz odstavkov 2 in 3 tega člena, ali ne obstaja javni interes, ki prevlada in vendarle utemelji razkritje zadevnega dokumenta.
It is, in principle, open to the Council to base its decisions in that regard on general presumptions which apply to certain categories of documents, as considerations of a generally similar kind are likely to apply to requests for disclosure relating to documents of the same nature.
Načeloma lahko odločitve Sveta v zvezi s tem temeljijo na splo�nih domnevah, ki veljajo za določeno vrsto dokumentov, saj lahko podobne splo�ne ugotovitve veljajo za zahteve za razkritje, ki se nana�ajo na dokumente iste vrste.
However, it is incumbent on the Council to establish in each case whether the general considerations normally applicable to a particular type of document are in fact applicable to a specific document which it has been asked to disclose.
Vendar pa mora v vsakem primeru preveriti, ali splo�ne ugotovitve, ki po navadi veljajo za določeno vrsto dokumentov, dejansko veljajo za zadevni dokument, katerega razkritje se zahteva.
It is in the light of those legal considerations that the pleas on which the appellants base their appeals must be examined.
Ob upo�tevanju teh pravnih elementov je treba preučiti pritožbene razloge, ki sta jih navedla pritožnika v utemeljitev svojih pritožb.
The second plea will be examined first.
Najprej je treba preučiti drugi pritožbeni razlog.
The second plea is divided into three parts, all three of which allege that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog se razdeli na tri točke, ki izhajajo iz tega, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno razlagalo člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
By the first part, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance misconstrued that provision by not properly verifying whether the Council had examined the document in question in a sufficiently detailed manner before refusing to disclose it.
S prvo točko pritožnika uveljavljata, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni spo�tovalo te določbe, s tem da ni pravilno preverilo, ali je Svet sporni dokument dovolj natančno preučil, preden je zavrnil razkritje.
By the second part, the appellants complain that the Court of First Instance accepted reasons for the refusal stated in general terms relating to all legal opinions of the Council’s legal service concerning legislative acts rather than specifically to the legal opinion in question.
Z drugo točko pritožnika Sodi�ču prve stopnje očitata, da je sprejelo obrazložitev zavrnitve, ki se je splo�no nana�ala na vsa pravna mnenja pravne službe Sveta o zakonodajnih aktih, in ne specifično na zadevno pravno mnenje.
By the third part, the appellants maintain that the Court of First Instance infringed that provision by accepting that there was a general need for confidentiality as regards legal opinions on legislative questions.
S tretjo točko pritožnika poudarjata, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo navedeno določbo, s tem da je priznalo, da obstaja splo�na potreba po zaupnosti v zvezi s pravnimi mnenji o zakonodajnih vpra�anjih.
The Council takes the view that the first and second parts of this plea are based on a confusion between, on the one hand, the principle that each document should be assessed on the basis of its content and, on the other hand, the possibility of relying on generalised reasoning.
Svet meni, da prva in druga točka obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga temeljita na zmedi med načelom, v skladu s katerim je treba vsak dokument presoditi glede na njegovo vsebino, in možnostjo sklicevanja na splo�ne razloge.
As regards the third part of that plea, the Council maintains the position which it defended before the Court of First Instance, namely that there is a general need for confidentiality in respect of legal advice on legislative questions, since, first, the disclosure of such advice could give rise to lingering doubts as to the lawfulness of the legislative act concerned and, secondly, the independence of its legal service would be compromised by systematic disclosure of that advice.
V zvezi s tretjo točko tega pritožbenega razloga Svet ohranja stali�če, ki ga je podal pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, in sicer da obstaja splo�na potreba po zaupnosti v zvezi s pravnimi mnenji o zakonodajnih vpra�anjih, če bi lahko razkritje takih mnenj povzročilo dvom o zakonitosti zadevnega zakonodajnega akta in če bi sistematično razkritje teh mnenj ogrozilo neodvisnost njegove pravne službe.
As regards the first part of this plea, it must be held that the Court of First Instance could reasonably conclude from the fact that the Council agreed to disclose the introductory paragraph of the legal opinion in question but refused access to the rest of that opinion by relying on the protection of legal advice that that institution had indeed examined the request for disclosure of that legal opinion in the light of the latter’s content and had thus at the very least completed the first stage of the examination described in paragraphs 37 to 47 of this judgment.
V zvezi s prvo točko obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje iz dejstva, da je Svet odobril razkritje uvodnega odstavka spornega pravnega mnenja in zavrnil dostop do drugih delov tega mnenja s sklicevanjem na varstvo pravnih mnenj te institucije, lahko veljavno sklepalo, da je ta institucija dejansko preučila zahtevo za razkritje navedenega pravnega mnenja ob upo�tevanju njegove vsebine in da je opravila vsaj prvo fazo preučitve, ki je opisana v točkah od 37 do 47 te sodbe.
Consequently, the first part of this plea must be rejected.
Prvo točko obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga je torej treba zavrniti.
As regards the second part of this plea, the fact that the Court of First Instance accepted that reasons of a general kind could be taken into account by the Council in order to justify the partial refusal of access to the legal opinion at issue does not, as follows from paragraph 50 of this judgment, in itself invalidate the Court of First Instance’s examination of that refusal.
V zvezi z drugo točko drugega pritožbenega razloga okoli�čina, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje sprejelo dejstvo, da je Svet upo�teval splo�ne razloge za utemeljitev delne zavrnitve dostopa do spornega pravnega mnenja, ne pomeni, kot izhaja iz točke 50 te sodbe, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni veljavno preučilo navedene zavrnitve.
It must, however, be pointed out, first, that the Court of First Instance did not require the Council to have checked whether the reasons of a general nature on which it relied were in fact applicable to the legal opinion whose disclosure was requested.
Vendarle je treba ugotoviti, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zahtevalo, naj Svet preveri, ali splo�ni razlogi, na katere se je skliceval, dejansko veljajo za pravno mnenje, katerega razkritje se je od njega zahtevalo.
Secondly, as will be apparent from the considerations concerning the third part of this plea which follow, the Court of First Instance erred in holding that there was a general need for confidentiality in respect of advice from the Council’s legal service relating to legislative matters.
Poleg tega, kot izhaja iz sledečih ugotovitev v zvezi s tretjo točko obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga, je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno menilo, da obstaja splo�na potreba po zaupnosti mnenj pravne službe Sveta o zakonodajnih vpra�anjih.
Neither of the two arguments raised in that regard by the Council and restated by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 78 and 79 of the judgment under appeal can substantiate that assertion.
Nobena od trditev, ki ju je navedel Svet in ki ju je povzelo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 78 in 79 izpodbijane sodbe, namreč ne more utemeljiti te navedbe.
As regards, first, the fear expressed by the Council that disclosure of an opinion of its legal service relating to a legislative proposal could lead to doubts as to the lawfulness of the legislative act concerned, it is precisely openness in this regard that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated.
Prvič, v zvezi z zaskrbljenostjo Sveta, da bi lahko razkritje mnenja njegove pravne službe o zakonodajnem predlogu povzročilo dvom o zakonitosti zadevnega zakonodajnega akta, je treba opozoriti, da ravno preglednost v zvezi s tem omogoča javno razpravo o razhajanjih med različnimi mnenji ter daje institucijam večjo legitimnost v očeh evropskih državljanov in povečuje njihovo zaupanje.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P as regards the lawfulness of an isolated act, but also as regards the legitimacy of the decisionmaking process as a whole.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P
Furthermore, the risk that doubts might be engendered in the minds of European citizens as regards the lawfulness of an act adopted by the Community legislature because the Council’s legal service had given an unfavourable opinion would more often than not fail to arise if the statement of reasons for that act was reinforced, so as to make it apparent why that unfavourable opinion was not followed.
Poleg tega se tveganje za nastanek dvomov pri evropskih državljanih glede zakonitosti akta, ki ga je sprejel zakonodajalec Skupnosti, čeprav je pravna služba Sveta podala negativno mnenje v zvezi s tem aktom, najverjetneje ne bo uresničilo, če se bolje obrazloži navedeni akt, tako da se poudarijo razlogi, zakaj to negativno mnenje ni bilo upo�tevano.
Consequently, to submit, in a general and abstract way, that there is a risk that disclosure of legal advice relating to legislative processes may give rise to doubts regarding the lawfulness of legislative acts does not suffice to establish that the protection of legal advice will be undermined for the purposes of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and cannot, accordingly, provide a basis for a refusal to disclose such advice.
Tako je treba ugotoviti, da splo�na in abstraktna navedba tveganja, da lahko razkritje pravnih mnenj v zvezi z zakonodajnimi postopki povzroči dvome o zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, ne more zadostovati za opredelitev oslabitve varstva pravnih nasvetov v smislu člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 in torej ne more utemeljiti zavrnitve razkritja teh mnenj.
As regards, secondly, the Council’s argument that the independence of its legal service would be compromised by possible disclosure of legal opinions issued in the course of legislative procedures, it must be pointed out that that fear lies at the very heart of the interests protected by the exception provided for in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Drugič, v zvezi s trditvijo Sveta, da naj bi bila z morebitnim razkritjem pravnih mnenj, ki jih izdaja njegova pravna služba v okviru zakonodajnih postopkov, ogrožena njena neodvisnost, je treba ugotoviti, da je ta zaskrbljenost bistvo interesov, ki so varovani z izjemo iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
As is apparent from paragraph 42 of this judgment, that exception seeks specifically to protect an institution’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice.
Kot namreč izhaja iz točke 42 te sodbe, je namen te izjeme varovati interes institucije, da zahteva pravne nasvete in prejme odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete.
However, in that regard, the Council relied before both the Court of First Instance and the Court on mere assertions, which were in no way substantiated by detailed arguments.
Vendarle je treba poudariti, da se je Svet v zvezi s tem skliceval pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in pred Sodi�čem na preproste navedbe, ki jih ni utemeljil z natančnimi trditvami.