natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, all documents mentioned on the agenda for an open Council meeting are published before that Council meeting is held, pursuant to Article 11 (5) of Annex II to the Council's Rules of Procedure 20.
Poleg tega se v skladu s _13lenom 11(5) Priloge II poslovnika Sveta20vsi dokumenti, navedeni na dnevnem redu seje Sveta, ki je odprta za javnost, objavijo _9e pred to sejo.
This means in practice that documents listed under a public deliberation item or an item for a public debate which have not been released upon circulation are to be disclosed.
To v praksi pomeni, da je treba razkriti dokumente, navedene na dnevnem redu Sveta pod to_13ko za javno posvetovanje ali pod to_13ko za javno razpravo, ki ob razpo_9iljanju niso bili objavljeni.
In the second half of 2006, more than 225 documents were made available online via the public register at the eve of the relevant Council session.
V drugi polovici leta 2006 je bilo ve_13 kot 225 dokumentov javno dostopnih na predve_13er zadevne seje Sveta, in sicer na spletu prek javnega registra.
In addition, measures have been taken in order to substantially improve the technical means used to broadcast, in all official languages of the institutions of the European Union, public Council deliberations and debates, notably through the use of the Internet.
Sprejeti so bili tudi ukrepi, s katerimi naj bi se znatno izbolj_9ala tehni_13na sredstva za prena_9anje javnih posvetovanj in javnih razprav Sveta v vseh uradnih jezikih institucij Evropske unije, zlasti z uporabo interneta.
The efforts to further improve the live broadcast of Council meetings will be continued.
Prizadevanja za dodatno izbolj_9anje neposrednih prenosov sej Sveta se bodo nadaljevala.
A special "Open Sessions" entry has been created on the Council's web site, enabling interested citizens to watch the webcasts and to consult all documents related to the public Council sessions as well as background notes, press releases and - following each public deliberation that leads to a vote on a legislative act - also a detailed outcome of the voting.
Na spletni strani Sveta je bil oblikovan poseben vnos "javne seje", ki zainteresiranim dr_11avljanom omogo_13a spremljanje prenosov po internetu in dostop do vseh dokumentov, ki se nana_9ajo na javne seje Sveta, ter do informativnih opomb, sporo_13il za javnost in po vsaki javni razpravi, ki ji sledi glasovanje o zakonodajnem aktu, tudi do podrobnega izida glasovanja.
In December 2006, the Presidency submitted a preliminary 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 work21.
Decembra 2006 je predsedstvo Svetu predlo_11ilo predhodno poro_13ilo o izvajanju splo_9ne politike preglednosti ter presojo njenih vplivov na u_13inkovitost delovanja Sveta21.
A more substantive review on their implementation and effects of the overall policy on transparency will be conducted by the end of 2007, when more practical experience has been acquired.
Vsebinsko obse_11nej_9i pregled izvajanja in u_13inkov na splo_9no politiko preglednosti bo opravljen do konca leta 2007, ko se bo nabralo ve_13 prakti_13nih izku_9enj.
While, at the time of the preliminary assessment, the new transparency measures did not appear to have had a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Council's work22, the number of public sessions concerning legislative as well as non-legislative issues had increased substantially during the last six months of 200623, and a considerable number of visits had been recorded for the new facilities providing access to the
Medtem ko v _13asu predhodnega ocenjevanja ni bilo videti, da bi novi ukrepi za preglednost negativno vplivali na u_13inkovitost delovanja Sveta22, se je _9tevilo javnih sej o zakonodajnih aktih ter tudi o nezakonodajnih vpra_9anjih v zadnjih _9estih mesecih leta 200623 znatno pove_13alo in zabele_11eno je bilo precej_9nje _9tevilo obiskov novih strani, ki omogo_13ajo dostop do prenosov po internetu in do dokumentov, povezanih z javnimi sejami Sveta24.
webcasts and the documents related to the public Council sessions
Medinstitucionalni odbor za dostop do dokumentov
Interinstitutional Committee on Access to Documents
Leta 2002 je bil v skladu s _13lenom 15(2) Uredbe (ES) _9t.
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.
1049/2001 ustanovljen medinstitucionalni odbor, ki preu_13uje najbolj_9e prakse, obravnava morebitne spore in razpravlja o nadaljnjem razvoju na podro_13ju dostopa do dokumentov.
The committee did not meet at political level during the reference period.
Leta 2006 pa je bilo sklicanih ve_13 sestankov med slu_11bami Sveta, Parlamenta in Komisije, odgovornimi za uporabo Uredbe (ES) _9t.
However, a number of meetings between the Council, Parliament and Commission departments responsible for applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were held in 2006 in order to explore the possibility of increasing the user-friendliness of the public registers of the three institutions and with a view to compare and exchange practical experience as regards the application of the Regulation in the light of recent case-law on public access to documents.
1049/2001, da bi se preu_13ile mo_11nosti, kako bi lahko javni registri teh institucij postali prijaznej_9i do uporabnika ter da bi primerjali in izmenjali prakti_13ne izku_9nje glede uporabe Uredbe glede na nedavno sodno prakso o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov.
A more substantive review on their implementation and effects of the overall policy on transparency will be conducted by the end of 2007, when more practical experience has been acquired.
Vsebinsko obse_11nej_9i pregled njihovega izvajanja in u_13inkov na splo_9no politiko preglednosti bo opravljen do konca leta 2007, ko se bo nabralo ve_13 prakti_13nih izku_9enj.
While, during the first half of 2006, 17% of all legislative discussions in the Council took place in public, this figure had risen to 76% during the second half of the year.
Medtem ko je bilo v prvi polovici leta 2006 javnih 17 % vseh zakonodajnih razprav Sveta, se je to _9tevilo v drugi polovici tega leta pove_13alo na 76 %.
Altogether 122 legislative items ("A" items as well as "B" items) and 45 non-legislative issues (all "B" items) were dealt with in public during the second half of 2006, which brings the number of topics dealt with in public during that period to a total of 167 items.
V drugi polovici leta 2006 je bilo javno obravnavanih 122 zakonodajnih to_13k (to_13k pod "A" kot tudi to_13k pod "B") ter 45 nezakonodajnih vpra_9anj (vse to_13ke pod "B"), kar predstavlja skupno 167 to_13k, ki so bile v tem obdobju obravnavane javno.
By the end of 2006, more than 40 000 visits had been recorded for these new facilities on the Council's web site.
Do konca leta 2006 je bilo zabele_11enih ve_13 kot 40.000 obiskov teh novih zmogljivosti na spletni strani Sveta.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information in Environmental Matters
Uredba (ES) _7t. 1367/2006 o uporabi dolo_9b Aarhu_7ke konvencije o dostopu do informacij v okoljskih zadevah
In September 2006, the European Parliament and the Council jointly adopted Regulation 1367/2006 on the application of the provisions of the Århus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Septembra 2006 sta Evropski parlament in Svet skupaj sprejela Uredbo 1367/2006 o uporabi dolo_13b Aarhu_9ke konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udele_11bi javnosti pri odlo_13anju in dostopu do pravnega
Decisionmaking and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies
Kakor je bilo omenjeno _11e v prej_9njem letnem poro_13ilu o dostopu do dokumentov, so Konvencijo Gospodarske komisije OZN za Evropo o dostopu do informacij, udele_11bi javnosti pri odlo_13anju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah ("Århu_9ko konvencijo") Evropska skupnost in njene
States in 199826.
V skladu z Uredbo (ES) _9t.
The Community approved the convention by Council Decision 2005/370/EC on 17 February 200527.
1367/2006, ki se bo uporabljala od 28. junija 2007, ima vsaka fizi_13na ali pravna oseba pravico dostopa do informacij o okolju, ki jih hrani katera koli institucija ali organ
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for exceptions, these shall apply subject to any more specific provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 concerning requests for environmental information.
V zvezi s prvo in tretjo alineo _13lena 4(2) Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001 se _9teje, da prevlada javni interes za razkritje, _13e se zahtevane informacije nana_9ajo na emisije v okolje.
As regards Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/200129, an overriding public interest in disclosure shall be deemed to exist where the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.
Glede drugih izjem, dolo_13enih v _13lenu 4 Uredbe (ES) _9t.
As regards the other exceptions set out in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the grounds for refusal shall be interpreted in a restrictive way, taking into account the public interest served by disclosure and whether the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.
1049/2001, se razlogi za zavrnitev razlagajo restriktivno ob upo_9tevanju javnega interesa, ki mu slu_11i razkritje, ter morebitne povezave med zahtevanimi informacijami in emisijami v okolje.
In addition to the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Community institutions and bodies may refuse access to environmental information where disclosure of the information would adversely affect the protection of the environment to which the information relates, such as the breeding
Poleg izjem iz _13lena 4 Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001 lahko institucije in organi Skupnosti zavrnejo dostop do informacij o okolju tudi v primeru, _13e bi razkritje informacij negativno vplivalo na varstvo okolja,
See Council Annual Report on access to documents 2004 (doc.
Glej letno poro_13ilo Sveta o dostopu do dokumentov iz leta 2004 (dok. 8896/05), str. 11–13.
Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 therefore also covers the Court of Justice, except when the Court is acting in its judicial capacity.
Uredba (ES) _9t. 1367/2006 tako pokriva tudi Sodi_9_13e, razen _13e Sodi_9_13e deluje v svoji sodni pristojnosti.
With the exception of investigations, in particular those concerning possible infringements of Community law; cf.
Z izjemo preiskav, zlasti tistih, povezanih z domnevnimi kr_9itvami prava Skupnosti; glej _13len 6(1) Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1367/2006.
See Article 6 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006.
Glej _13len 6(2) Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1367/2006.
The provisions laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 on the collection and dissemination of environmental information go somewhat beyond those laid down in Articles 12 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Dolo_13be iz Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1367/2006 o zbiranju in raz_9irjanju informacij o okolju nekoliko presegajo okvir dolo_13b iz _13lenov 12 in 13 Uredbe (ES) _9t. 1049/2001.
_1 texts of international treaties, conventions or agreements, Community legislation on the environment or relating to it, and of policies, plans and programmes relating to the environment;_1 progress reports on the implementation of those instruments; _1 steps taken in proceedings for infringements of Community law from the stage of the reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 226 (1) of the EC Treaty; _1 reports on the state of the environment which the Commission is required to publish and disseminate at regular intervals not exceeding 4 years; _1 data or summaries of data derived from the monitoring of activities affecting, or likely to affect, the environment; _1 authorisations with a significant impact on the environment, and environmental impact studies and risk assessments concerning environmental elements.
_1 besedila mednarodnih pogodb, konvencij ali sporazumov, zakonodaje Skupnosti o okolju ali v zvezi z njim ter politik, na_13rtov in programov v zvezi z okoljem;poro_13ila o napredku glede izvajanja teh instrumentov; ukrepi, sprejeti v postopkih za ugotavljanje kr_9itev prava Skupnosti po obrazlo_11enem mnenju v skladu s _13lenom 226(1) Pogodbe ES; poro_13ila o stanju okolja, ki jih mora Komisija objavljati in raz_9irjati v rednih _13asovnih presledkih, ki niso dalj_9i od _9tirih let; podatke ali povzetke podatkov, pridobljenih s spremljanjem dejavnosti, ki vplivajo ali bi utegnile vplivati na okolje; dovoljenja s pomembnim vplivom na okolje ter _9tudije vplivov na okolje in ocene tveganj glede okoljskih elementov.
In appropriate cases, Community institutions and bodies may satisfy their obligations regarding the collection and dissemination of environmental information by creating links to Internet sites where the information can be found.
V ustreznih primerih lahko institucije in organi Skupnosti svoje obveznosti v zvezi z zbiranjem in raz_9irjanjem informacij o okolju izpolnijo tako, da oblikujejo povezave do internetnih strani, kjer je mogo_13e najti te informacije.
COMPLAINT LODGED WITH THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
PRITO_10BA, NASLOVLJENA NA EVROPSKEGA VARUHA _12LOVEKOVIH PRAVIC
The following section of this report refers to the only complaint lodged in 2006 concerning the Council's application of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Naslednji del tega poro_13ila se nana_9a na edino prito_11bo, vlo_11eno leta 2006, ki zadeva uporabo Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001 s strani Sveta.
This complaint relates to the Council's refusal to grant access to document 15066/05, which is a letter from the Chairman of the Administrative Board of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Trade marks and Designs), to the Council's Secretary-General/High Representative for CFSP, containing at annex a summary of decisions taken during the 30th meeting of the above-mentioned Administrative Board held in Alicante on 23 November 2005, and a list of candidates for the post of President of the Boards of Appeal.
Prito_11ba se nana_9a na zavrnitev dostopa do dokumenta 15066/05 s strani Sveta, ki vsebuje pismo predsednika upravnega odbora Urada za usklajevanje na notranjem trgu (UUNT) (znamke in modeli) generalnemu sekretarju Sveta/visokemu predstavniku za SZVP skupaj s prilogo, v kateri je podan povzetek odlo_13itev, sprejetih na 30. seji zgoraj omenjenega upravnega odbora v Alicanteju 23. novembra 2005, ter prilogo s seznamom kandidatov za mesto predsednika Odbora za prito_11be.
Given that the requested document originated from OHIM, the Council consulted that agency, in accordance with Article 4 (4) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Glede na to, da zahtevani dokument izvira iz UUNT, se je Svet s tem uradom posvetoval v skladu s _13lenom 4(4) Uredbe _9t. 1049/2001.
On 19 December 2005, OHIM agreed to the release of the document, but requested the Council to withhold from page 5 the names of the candidates appearing on the above-mentioned list on that page.
UUNT je 19. decembra 2005 podal soglasje k objavi dokumenta, Svet pa je zaprosil, da na strani 5 zakrije imena kandidatov z omenjenega seznama.
In OHIM’s view, the identity of these candidates is protected pursuant to Article 4(1)(b) of the Regulation (protection of privacy).
Po mnenju UUNT je identiteta teh kandidatov za_9_13itena v skladu s _13lenom 4(1)(b) Uredbe (za_9_13ita zasebnosti).
In its reply to the applicant's initial request, dated 19 December 2005, the General Secretariat granted partial access to this document on these lines, since it saw no reasons to deviate from OHIM’s assessment.
V odgovoru na prosil_13evo za_13etno pro_9njo z dne 19. decembra 2005 je generalni sekretariat na podlagi zgoraj navedenega odobril delni dostop do tega dokumenta, saj ni videl razloga za odstopanje od presoje UUNT.
The Council subsequently confirmed this position in its reply to the applicant's confirmatory request, in which he had asked the Institution to reconsider its initial refusal by granting full access to document 15066/05.
Svet je kasneje to stali_9_13e potrdil v svojem odgovoru na prosil_13evo potrdilno pro_9njo, v kateri je slednji institucijo zaprosil, naj ponovno premisli o svoji prvotni zavrnitvi in odobri popoln dostop do dokumenta 15066/05.
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 Boards of Appeal of 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 prito_11bi, naslovljeni na varuha, je prito_11nik navedel, da je odlo_13itev Sveta, da mu zavrne dostop do izida izbirnega postopka za mesto predsednika Odbora za prito_11be UUNT neutemeljena, in vztrajal pri zahtevi za dostop do dokumenta, pri _13emer naj se prika_11e 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.
Prito_11nik je varuhu naknadno sporo_13il, da bi bil pripravljen sprejeti dejstvo, da bi moral v primeru, _13e 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.
In its opinion on this complaint, the Council pointed out that there were two different aspects to the matter, namely (1) the question whether the Council committed maladministration at the time of the adoption of the contested confirmatory decision and (2) the question whether the additional information provided by the complainant in his complaint to the Ombudsman would now allow the Council to take a different decision.
V svojem mnenju o tej prito_11bi je Svet poudaril, da gre za dva razli_13na vidika te zadeve, in sicer gre za vpra_9anje, ali je Svet pri sprejetju te sporne potrdilne odlo_13itve ravnal nepravilno, ter za vpra_9anje, ali ne bi na podlagi dodatnih informacij, ki jih je prito_11nik posredoval v svoji prito_11bi varuhu, Svet lahko ravnal druga_13e.
As indicated above, the General Secretariat of the Council had initially consulted OHIM pursuant to Article 4 (4) of Regulation 1049/2001, which provides as follows: “As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed”.
Kot je navedeno zgoraj, se je generalni sekretariat Sveta sprva posvetoval z UUNT v skladu s _13lenom 4(4) Uredbe 1049/2001, ki dolo_13a: "Glede dokumentov tretjih strank se institucija s tretjimi strankami posvetuje, da bi presodila, ali se lahko uporabi izjema iz odstavkov 1 ali 2, razen _13e je _11e jasno, ali naj se dokument razkrije ali ne".
In its opinion on the complaint, the Council took the view that although it is true that in the system of Article 4(4) of the Regulation, the final decision on confirmatory requests no longer lies with the originator, it is equally true that Article 4(4) must be interpreted in a manner that gives full effect to its wording.
Svet je v svojem mnenju o prito_11bi zavzel stali_9_13e, da _13eprav dr_11i, da v skladu s strukturo _13lena 4(4) Uredbe kon_13na odlo_13itev o potrdilnih pro_9njah ni ve_13 v rokah tistega, ki je dokument ustvaril, prav tako dr_11i, da je treba _13len 4(4) razlagati na na_13in, ki v celoti upo_9teva njegovo ubeseditev.
Apart from the fact that the originator is often best placed to assess the possible harm that release could cause, it was also highly unlikely that the drafters of the Regulation had intended the consultation of the originating third party to be a mere formality.
Poleg dejstva, da lahko tisti, ki je dokument ustvaril, najbolje presodi morebitno _9kodo, ki bi jo povzro_13ila njegova objava, je tudi zelo malo verjetno, da so pripravljavci Uredbe na_13rtovali, da bo posvetovanje s tretjo stranjo, od katere izvira dokument, zgolj formalnost.
The operation of Article 4(4) presumes a measure of mutual trust between the institutions and bodies as regards the treatment of their respective documents.
Pri izvajanju _13lena 4(4) je potrebna dolo_13ena mera zaupanja med institucijami in organi, kar zadeva obravnavo posameznih dokumentov.
The Council could therefore not simply ignore OHIM’s opinion as regards a document drawn up by it.
Svet zato ni mogel prezreti mnenja UUNT v zvezi z dokumentom, ki ga je sestavil ta organ.
The application by the Council of the provision laid down in Article 4 (4) of the Regulation should be seen against this background.
Uporabo dolo_13be iz _13lena 4(4) Uredbe s strani Sveta je treba upo_9tevati na podlagi navedenega.
The Council normally consults the third party and, unless that party's opinion is manifestly unreasonable or illegal, it respects the opinion given by the third party concerned.
Svet se obi_13ajno posvetuje s tretjo stranjo in – razen _13e je mnenje te strani o_13itno nerazumno ali nezakonito – mnenje zadevne tretje strani tudi spo_9tuje.
In the case at hand, the question was not whether the Council would have arrived at exactly the same conclusion as OHIM.
V tem primeru ne gre za vpra_9anje, ali bi Svet pri_9el do popolnoma enakega zaklju_13ka kot UUNT.
Rather, the test applied was whether OHIM’s reasoning was manifestly incorrect.
Prej gre za preskus, ali je bilo sklepanje UUNT o_13itno nepravilno.
In the Council’s judgment, this was not the case.
Po mnenju Sveta temu ni bilo tako.
Consequently, access to the three names was refused.
Zato se je dostop do zadevnih treh imen zavrnil.
The Council considered that this manner of application Article 4 (4) was reasonable and well within the limits of the law.
Svet je bil mnenja, da je tak_9na uporaba _13lena 4(4) razumna in povsem v mejah zakona.
It moreover minimised the risk that the Council incurred a legal liability as a result of disclosure contested by the originating third party.
Poleg tega se je s tem v kar najve_13ji mo_11ni meri zmanj_9alo tveganje, da bi moral Svet prevzeti pravno odgovornost zaradi razkritja, ki bi ga izpodbijala tretja stran, od katere dokument izvira.
As regards the second question, the Council investigated 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.
Kar zadeva drugo vpra_9anje, je Svet preu_13il, ali bi dodatne informacije, ki jih je prito_11nik posredoval varuhu, Svetu omogo_13ile zagotoviti ve_13 informacij, _13eprav v strogem pomenu besede to vpra_9anje ne spada v obseg njegove prito_11be.
To that effect, it reconsulted OHIM.
V ta namen se je Svet ponovno posvetoval z UUNT.
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 _11elel prito_11nik vedeti predvsem to, ali je bil on eden izmed treh kandidatov, imenovanih v dokumentu, in koliko glasov je prejel, bi Svet lahko sporo_13il prito_11niku, da v dokumentu ni bil omenjen.
This case is still pending.
Ta zadeva se _9e obravnava.
In 2006, no rulings were given by the Community Courts in cases concerning access to Council documents.
V letu 2006 sodi_9_13a Skupnosti niso izdala nobene odlo_13itve v zadevah v zvezi z dostopom do dokumentov Sveta.
However, on 1 February 2007, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in case C-266/05 P, in which the applicant, José María Sisón had brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Sodi_9_13e pa je 1. februarja 2007 izreklo sodbo v zadevi C-266/05 P, v kateri se je prosilec, José María Sisón, prito_11il zoper sodbo Sodi_9_13a prve stopnje z dne 26. aprila 2005 v zdru_11enih