natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Application for nonrecognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been submitted beforehand: judgment of 11 July 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Pristojnost in priznavanje ter izvr�evanje sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo – Uredba �t. 2201/2003 – Izvr�ljivost potrjene odločbe, ki odreja vrnitev otroka in ki sledi odločbi, da se otrok ne vrne: sodba z dne 11. julija 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . .
— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Enforceability of a certified judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of non-return: judgment of 11 July 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Pristojnost in priznavanje ter izvr�evanje sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s star�evsko odgovornostjo – Uredba �t. 2201/2003 – Predlog za nepriznanje sodne odločbe, če ni bil prej vložen predlog za priznanje: sodba z dne 11. julija 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . . . . . . . .
— Pensions — Weighting: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Campoli v Commission, C-71/07 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Sektor za telekomunikacije – Direktivi 90/388 in 97/33: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Arcor in drugi, od C-152/07 do C-154/07) . . . . . . . . . .
— Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Existence of a special situation: judgment of 25 July 2008 (C.A.S. v Commission, C-204/07 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Ukrepi približevanja – Skupna pravila notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom – Direktiva 2003/55: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (ASM Brescia, C-347/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Preliminary rulings
Pritožba
— Admissibility — Limits — Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Corporación Dermoestética, C-500/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Nasprotna pritožba – Predmet – Razglasitev nedopustnosti pritožbe pritožnika – Nedopustnost: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Campoli proti Komisiji, C-71/07 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits: judgment of 17 July 2008 (ASM Brescia, C-347/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Zračni promet – Uredba �t. 261/2004 – Skupna pravila glede od�kodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov – Področje uporabe: sodba z dne 10. julija 2008 (Emirates Airlines, C-173/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court: judgment of 17 July 2008 (ASM Brescia, C-347/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Carine – Dajatve s podobnim učinkom – Notranji davki: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Essent Netwerk Noord in drugi, C-206/06) . . . . . . . . . .
— Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions: judgment of 11 July 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Delavci – Določbe Pogodbe – Prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva – Področje uporabe: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Raccanelli, C-94/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Intervention — Plea of inadmissibility not raised by the defendant — Inadmissible: judgment of 1 July 2008 (Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Delavci – Pojem: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Raccanelli, C-94/07) . . . . .
— Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability — Scope: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Coleman, C-303/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Delavci – Pravica družinskih članov do prebivanja – Pravica zakonca, ki je državljan tretje države, do prebivanja: sodba z dne 25. julija 2008 (Metock in drugi, C-127/08) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Prohibition of harassment — Scope: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Coleman, C-303/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Svoboda ustanavljanja – Omejitve: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Komisija proti Franciji, C-389/05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Meaning: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Essent Netwerk Noord and Others, C-206/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Svoboda ustanavljanja – Svoboda opravljanja storitev: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Corporación Dermoestética, C-500/06) . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Meaning — Logistical and commercial assistance provided by an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest to its subsidiary: judgment of 1 July 2008 (Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Svoboda ustanavljanja – Svoboda opravljanja storitev – Omejitve: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Komisija proti Franciji, C-389/05) . . . . . . . . . . .
— Meaning — Transfer to a private-law subsidiary not operating in a reserved market of the client base of a service established by its parent company which does operate in a reserved market: judgment of 1 July 2008 (Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Enako obravnavanje pri zaposlovanju in delu – Direktiva 2000/78 – Prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi invalidnostI - Obseg: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Coleman, C-303/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Flughafen Köln v Bonn, C-226/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Enako obravnavanje pri zaposlovanju in delu – Direktiva 2000/78 – Prepoved nadlegovanja – Obseg: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Coleman, C-303/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax: judgment of 10 July 2008 (Sosnowska, C-25/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Omejitve: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Komisija proti Franciji, C-389/05) . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Prohibition on the levying of other domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Krawczyński, C-426/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Dopustnost – Meje – Vpra�anja, ki so očitno neupo�tevna, in hipotetična vpra�anja, zastavljena v kontekstu, v katerem ni mogoče dati koristnega odgovora: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (Corporación Dermoestética, C-500/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality: judgment of 10 July 2008 (Koninklijke Ahold, C-484/06) . . . . .
– Nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja – Pogoji: sodba z dne 11. julija 2008 (Rinau, C-195/08 PPU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Provisions on rounding of the amount of the tax: judgment of 10 July 2008 (Koninklijke Ahold, C-484/06) . . . . . .
– Pristojnost Sodi�ča – Omejitve: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (ASM Brescia, C-347/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Internal taxation — Excise duty on any sale of motor vehicles before their first registration on national territory: judgment of 17 July 2008 (Krawczyński, C-426/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Pristojnost Sodi�ča – Omejitve – Pristojnost nacionalnega sodi�ča: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (ASM Brescia, C-347/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transport
Znamka Skupnosti
— Carriage by air — Regulation No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope: judgment of 10 July 2008 (Emirates Airlines, C-173/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Opredelitev in pridobitev znamke Skupnosti – Relativni razlogi za zavrnitev – Ugovor imetnika prej�nje enake ali podobne znamke, registrirane za enake ali podobne proizvode ali storitve: sodba z dne 17. julija 2008 (L & D proti UUNT, C-488/06 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 5725
Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P
Združeni zadevi C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P
(Appeals — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Legal advice)
„Pritožba – Dostop do dokumentov institucij – Uredba (ES) �t. 1049/2001 – Pravni nasveti“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 29 November 2007 . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
European Communities — Institutions — Right of public access to documents — Regulation No 1049/2001
Evropske skupnosti – Institucije – Pravica dostopa javnosti do dokumentov – Uredba št. 1049/2001
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 1049/2001, Art. 4(2), second indent)
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 1049/2001, člen 4(2), druga alinea)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P
indent of Article 4(2) of that regulation must be construed as aiming to protect an institution’s interest in seeking legal advice and receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice.
razlagati tako, da je njen namen varovati interes institucije, da zahteva pravne nasvete in prejme odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete.
As regards the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the institution which is asked to disclose a document must satisfy itself that the document 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.
Glede izjeme v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti, predvidene v členu 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije, mora institucija, od katere se zahteva razkritje dokumenta, preveriti, ali se ta dokument nana�a na pravne nasvete in, če se, določiti, kateri njegovi deli ustrezajo in lahko torej spadajo na področje uporabe navedene izjeme.
The risk of that interest being undermined must, in order to be capable of being relied on, be reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical.
Tveganje za poseg v ta interes mora biti razumno predvidljivo in ne le hipotetično, da se ga lahko uveljavlja.
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).
Dejstvo, da je dokument naslovljen „pravno mnenje“, namreč ne pomeni, da je samodejno upravičen do varstva pravnih nasvetov iz navedenega člena 4(2), druga alinea.
Over and above the way a document is described, it is for the institution to satisfy itself that that document does indeed concern such advice.
Ne glede na njegov naslov se mora institucija prepričati, da se dokument res nana�a na tak nasvet.
(see paras 37-39)
(Glej točke od 37 do 39.)
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.
1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije niti v njenih pripravljalnih dokumentih ni pojasnil o obsegu pojma „varstvo“ pravnih nasvetov, ga je treba razlagati glede na sistematičnost in namen ureditve, katere del je.
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
Izjemo v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, navedene uredbe je torej treba
In so far as neither Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents nor its travaux préparatoires throw any light on the meaning of ‘protection’ of legal advice, that term must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.
V zvezi s tem 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 navedene določbe in torej ne more utemeljiti zavrnitve razkritja teh mnenj.
Consequently, the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second
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
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system.
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU ravnanje v razmerju do državljanov v demokratičnem sistemu.
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.
obrazloži navedeni akt, tako da se poudarijo razlogi, zakaj to negativno mnenje ni bilo upo�tevano.
(see paras 41-43, 59-61)
(Glej točke od 41 do 43 in od 59 do 61.)
Those considerations are clearly of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity, as is apparent from recital 6 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001, according to which wider access must be granted to documents in precisely such cases.
Te ugotovitve so zlasti ustrezne, kadar Svet deluje v svoji zakonodajni funkciji, kar izhaja iz uvodne izjave 6 Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, v skladu s katero se prav v takem primeru zagotovi �ir�i dostop do dokumentov.
Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinize all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act.
Preglednost v zvezi s tem povečuje krepitev demokracije tako, da omogoča državljanom nadzor nad vsemi informacijami, ki so bile podlaga za zakonodajni akt.
The possibility for citizens to find out the considerations underpinning legislative action is a precondition for the effective exercise of their democratic rights.
Možnost državljanov, da poznajo temelje zakonodajne dejavnosti, je namreč pogoj, da lahko učinkovito izvajajo svoje demokratične pravice.
In applying the exception relating to legal advice laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, it is incumbent on the institution to which the request for disclosure is addressed to ascertain, if it takes the view that disclosure would undermine the protection of legal advice, 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.
V okviru uporabe izjeme v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti, predvidene v členu 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije mora institucija, od katere se zahteva razkritje dokumenta, če meni, da bi razkritje dokumenta oslabilo varstvo pravnih nasvetov, preveriti, ali obstaja javni interes, ki prevlada in utemelji navedeno razkritje, ne glede na poseg v njeno možnost zahtevati pravne nasvete in prejeti odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete.
Consequently, Regulation No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s legal service relating to a legislative process.
V navedeni uredbi je zato načeloma določena obveznost razkritja mnenj pravne službe Sveta v zvezi z zakonodajnim postopkom.
That finding does not preclude a refusal, on account of the protection of legal advice, to disclose a specific legal opinion, given in the context of a legislative process, but being of a particularly sensitive nature or having a particularly wide scope that goes beyond the legislative process in question.
Ta ugotovitev vseeno ne ovira tega, da bi se lahko na podlagi varstva pravnih nasvetov zavrnilo razkritje posebnega pravnega mnenja, izdanega v okviru zakonodajnega postopka, ki ima posebej občutljivo vsebino ali je njegov obseg posebej �irok, tako da presega zadevni zakonodajni postopek.
In such a case, it is incumbent on the institution concerned to give a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.
V takem primeru bi morala zadevna institucija natančno obrazložiti zavrnitev.
In that respect, it is for the institution 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
V tem okviru mora 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 navedene uredbe, iz povečane preglednosti, to je tesnej�ega sodelovanja državljanov v postopku odločanja in večje zakonitosti v upravi ter njeno učinkovitej�e in odgovornej�e
(see paras 44-46, 68, 69)
(Glej točke od 44 do 46, 68 in 69.)
I — Background to the appeal
I – Okvir pritožbe
A — The applicable legislation
A – Predpisi, ki se uporabijo
The case before the Court of Justice arose out of two appeals brought by the Kingdom of Sweden and by Mr Maurizio Turco against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Turco v Council 2(‘the judgment under appeal’), by which that Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by Mr Turco against the decision of the Council of the European Union of 19 December 2002 which refused him access to an opinion of the Council’s legal service on a proposal for a directive.
Ta zadeva je posledica dveh pritožb, ki sta ju Kraljevina Švedska in Maurizio Turco vložila zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Turco proti Svetu 2 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo ničnostno tožbo, ki jo je M. Turco vložil zoper odločbo Sveta Evropske unije z dne 19. novembra 2002, s katero mu je ta zavrnil dostop do mnenja pravne službe Sveta o predlogu direktive.
Article 255(1) and (2) EC provides:
Člen 255(1) in (2) ES določa:
Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
Vsi državljani Unije in vse fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni od držav članic imajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije ob upo�tevanju načel in pogojev, ki naj se določijo v skladu z odstavkoma 2 in 3.
By their pleas in law in support of these appeals, the appellants request the Court to give a ruling on the scope and application to be given to the exception on the ground of confidentiality laid down in respect of legal advice by the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. 3
Pritožbeni razlogi, ki jih pritožnika navajata v podporo teh pritožb, zahtevajo od Sodi�ča, da odloči o obsegu in primerni uporabi izjeme zaupnosti, ki jo za pravna mnenja določa člen 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe (ES) �t. 1049/2001 3.
3 — Regulation (EC) No 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).
3 – Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam’.
Splo�na načela in omejitve iz razlogov javnega ali zasebnega interesa, ki veljajo za to pravico dostopa do dokumentov, določi Svet v skladu s postopkom iz člena 251 v dveh letih po začetku veljavnosti Amsterdamske pogodbe.“
On the basis of Article 255(2) EC, the Council adopted Regulation No 1049/2001.
Na podlagi člena 255(2) ES je Svet sprejel Uredbo �t. 1049/2001.
The third, fourth, sixth and eleventh recitals in the preamble to that regulation are worded as follows:
Tretja, četrta, �esta in enajsta uvodna izjava te uredbe določajo:
(11) In principle, all documents of the institutions should be accessible to the public.
(11) Načelno bi morali biti vsi dokumenti institucij dostopni javnosti.
However, certain public and private interests should be protected by way of exceptions.
Vendar pa je treba nekatere javne in zasebne interese za�čititi z izjemami.
The institutions should be entitled to protect their internal con -sultations and deliberations where necessary to safeguard their ability to carry out their tasks. …’
Institucije bi morale imeti pravico varovati svoja notranja posvetovanja in razprave, kadar je to potrebno za varovanje svoje sposobnosti opravljanja nalog. […]“
‘(3) … This Regulation consolidates the initiatives that the institutions have already taken with a view to improving the transparency of the decisionmaking process.
„(3) […] Ta uredba utrjuje pobude, ki so jih institucije že prevzele, da bi izbolj�ale preglednost postopka odločanja.
Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 states that the purpose of that regulation is ‘to define the principles, conditions and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing the right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission … documents provided for in Article 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to ensure the widest possible access to documents’.
Člen 1(a) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 določa, da je njen namen „na podlagi javnega ali zasebnega interesa določiti načela, pogoje in omejitve, ki urejajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije […] določene v členu 255 Pogodbe ES, da bi zagotovili čim �ir�i dostop do dokumentov“.
(4) The purpose of this Regulation is to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents and to lay down the general principles and limits on such access in accordance with Article 255(2) of the EC Treaty.
(4) Namen te uredbe je čim bolj uresničiti pravico dostopa javnosti do dokumentov ter določiti splo�na načela in omejitve takega dostopa v skladu s členom 255(2) Pogodbe ES.