natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the basis of that legally flawed analysis, the Council did not assess whether the public interest in transparency might not, in the present case, prevail over the need for protection which, as a rule, justifies the confidentiality of legal advice and, thus, justify the disclosure of the legal opinion requested.
Na podlagi te zmotne razlage prava Svet torej ni presodil, ali bi bil v obravnavanem primeru javni interes preglednosti lahko večji od potrebe po varstvu, ki načeloma upravičuje zaupnost pravnih mnenj, in bi torej lahko upravičil razkritje zapro�enega pravnega mnenja. Tožbeni razlog, ki ga je M.
On those grounds, the contested decision refusing disclosure must be annulled.
Zato je treba odločbo o zavrnitvi spornega razkritja razglasiti za nično.
On the grounds set out above I suggest that the Court should:
Iz navedenih razlogov predlagam Sodi�ču, naj:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Turco v Council as being vitiated by a breach of Community law consisting in a misinterpretation and a misapplication of the last phrase of Article 4(2) of 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;
– razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Turco proti Svetu (T-84/03), ker kr�i pravo Skupnosti, s tem da napačno razlaga in uporablja člen 4(2), zadnji stavek, Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) �t. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije;
— annul the decision of the Council of 19 December 2002 which refused Mr Maurizio Turco access to the opinion of its legal service on a proposal for a directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States.
– razglasi za nično odločbo Sveta z dne 19. decembra 2002, s katero je bil M. Turcu zavrnjen dostop do mnenja pravne službe o predlogu direktive o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil v državah članicah direktive.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 1. julija 2008 *
In Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P,
V združenih zadevah C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P, zaradi dveh pritožb na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki sta ju 31. januarja in 4. februarja 2005 vložila
Kingdom of Sweden, represented by K. Wistrand and A. Falk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Falk, zastopnici, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu,
JUDGMENT OF 1. 7.
SODBA Z DNE 1. 7.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P the other parties to the proceedings being:
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P druge stranke v postopku so
Kingdom of Denmark, represented by B. Weis Fogh, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kraljevina Danska, ki jo zastopa B. Weis Fogh, zastopnica, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu,
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 26 September 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 29 November 2007, gives the following
Poiares Maduro, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja oddelka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 26. septembra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 29. novembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
European Union of 19 December 2002 which refused him access to an opinion of the Council’s legal service concerning a proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States (‘the contested decision’).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P s katero mu je bil zavrnjen dostop do mnenja pravne službe Sveta v zvezi s predlogom direktive Sveta o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil v državah članicah (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
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 tej tožbi in sporno odločbo razglasi za nično.
By their pleas in law in support of these appeals, the appellants invite the Court to adjudicate on the scope and application of the exception to the obligation to disclose documents which is provided for, where disclosure would undermine the protection of legal advice, by the second indent of Article 4(2) of 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).
S pritožbenimi razlogi, ki jih navajata pritožnika, se Sodi�ču predlaga, naj se izreče o obsegu in uporabi izjeme od obveznosti razkritja dokumentov, ki je predvidena ob oslabitvi varstva pravnih nasvetov v členu 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) �t. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
Article 255 EC gives, in particular, to any citizen of the European Union a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the principles and the conditions defined by the Council on grounds of public or private interest.
V členu 255 ES je namreč vsem državljanom Evropske unije zagotovljena pravica dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije ob upo�tevanju načel in pogojev, ki jih določi Svet iz razlogov javnega ali zasebnega interesa.
Regulation No 1049/2001 was adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 255(2) EC.
Svet je na podlagi člena 255(2) ES sprejel Uredbo �t. 1049/2001.
Recitals 1 to 4, 6 and 11 in the preamble to that regulation are worded as follows:
V uvodnih izjavah od 1 do 4, 6 in 11 navedene uredbe je določeno:
‘(1) The second [paragraph] of Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union enshrines the concept of openness, stating that the Treaty marks 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.
„(1) Drugi pododstavek člena 1 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji opredeljuje pojem javnosti in pravi, da je Pogodba nov korak 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.
(2) Openness 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.
(2) Javnost omogoča državljanom, da tesneje sodelujejo v postopku odločanja, in zagotavlja, da je uprava deležna večje zakonitosti ter je učinkovitej�a in bolj odgovorna državljanu v demokratičnem sistemu.
Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Javnost prispeva h krepitvi načela demokracije in spo�tovanja človekovih temeljnih pravic in svobo�čin, določenih v členu 6 Pogodbe EU in v Evropski listini o temeljnih pravicah.
This Regulation consolidates the initiatives that the institutions have already taken with a view to improving the transparency of the decisionmaking process.
Ta uredba utrjuje pobude, ki so jih institucije že prevzele, da bi izbolj�ale preglednost postopka odločanja.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P
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. […]“
Under the heading ‘Purpose’, 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the institutions”) documents provided for in Article 255 of the EC Treaty in such a way as to ensure the widest possible access to documents’.
V členu 1 z naslovom „Namen“, točka (a), Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 je določeno, da je namen te uredbe „na podlagi javnega ali zasebnega interesa določiti načela, pogoje in omejitve, ki urejajo pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚institucije‘), določene v členu 255 Pogodbe ES, da bi zagotovili čim �ir�i dostop do dokumentov“.
Under the heading ‘Beneficiaries and scope’, Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 grants any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, a right of access to documents of the institutions, ‘subject to the principles, conditions and limits defined in this Regulation’.
V odstavku 1 člena 2, naslovljenega „Upravičenci do dostopa in področje uporabe“, iste uredbe je priznana vsem državljanom Unije in vsem fizičnim ali pravnim osebam s prebivali�čem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni od držav članic pravica dostopa do dokumentov institucij „ob upo�tevanju načel, pogojev in omejitev, določenih s to uredbo“.
Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001, headed ‘Exceptions’, provides:
V členu 4, naslovljenem „Izjeme“, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 je določeno:
— court proceedings and legal advice,
– sodnih postopkov in pravnih nasvetov,
… unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
[…] razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
Access to a document containing opinions for internal use as part of deliberations and preliminary consultations within the institution concerned shall be refused even after the decision has been taken if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decisionmaking process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Dostop do dokumenta, ki vsebuje mnenja za notranjo rabo kot del razprav in predhodnih posvetovanj v zadevni instituciji, se zavrne tudi po sprejetju odločitve, če bi razkritje resno oslabilo postopek odločanja institucije, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
The exceptions may apply for a maximum period of 30 years …’
Izjeme lahko veljajo za največ 30 let. […]“
Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides 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, subject to Articles 4 and 9 of that regulation, be made directly accessible.
V členu 12(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 je določeno, da morajo biti dokumenti, pripravljeni ali prejeti med postopki za sprejetje aktov, ki so pravno zavezujoči v državah članicah ali zanje, neposredno dostopni ob upo�tevanju členov 4 in 9 te uredbe.
The Council refused Mr Turco access to that opinion on 5 November 2002, on the basis of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Svet mu je 5. novembra 2002 na podlagi člena 4(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 zavrnil dostop do tega mnenja.
The reasons given for that refusal were as follows:
V obrazložitvi te zavrnitve je bilo navedeno:
‘Document [No] 9077/02 is an opinion of the Council legal service concerning a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States.
„Dokument [�t.] 9077/02 je mnenje pravne službe Sveta v zvezi s predlogom direktive Sveta o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil v državah članicah.
Given its content, the release of this document could undermine the protection of internal legal advice to the Council as referred to in Article 4(2) of … Regulation [No 1049/2001].
Glede na vsebino tega dokumenta bi lahko njegovo razkritje oslabilo varstvo notranjih pravnih nasvetov Sveta, določeno v členu 4(2) Uredbe [�t. 1049/2001].
In the absence of any specific reasons pointing to a particular overriding public interest in disclosure, the General Secretariat has concluded that, on balance, the interest in protecting internal legal advice outweighs the public interest and has therefore decided to refuse access to this document pursuant to Article 4(2) of [that] Regulation.
Ker ni podanih posebnih razlogov, ki bi nakazovali, da obstaja odločilen javni interes za razkritje tega dokumenta, je generalni sekretariat po pretehtanju interesov sklenil, da ima interes varovanja notranjih pravnih nasvetov prednost pred javnim interesom, in zato odločil, da v skladu s členom 4(2) [te] uredbe zavrne dostop do tega dokumenta.
This exception covers the entire content of the document.
Ta izjema se nana�a na celotno vsebino dokumenta.
Consequently, it is not possible to grant partial access pursuant to Article 4(6) of [that] Regulation.’
Tako ni mogoče dovoliti delnega dostopa do njega na podlagi člena 4(6) [navedene] uredbe.“
By the contested decision, the Council agreed to disclose the introductory paragraph of that opinion, in which it is stated that the opinion contains the advice of the Council’s legal service on the question of the powers of the Community regarding access to the labour market by third-country nationals, but it refused to reconsider its pos -ition as to the remainder.
S sporno odločbo je Svet v zvezi z navedenim mnenjem odobril razkritje njegovega uvodnega odstavka, v katerem je navedeno, da vsebuje mnenje pravne službe Sveta o vpra�anju pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju dostopa državljanov tretjih držav na trg dela, vendar je v preostalem delu zavrnil spremembo svojega stali�ča.
In essence, it justified its confirmation of refusal of access on the ground, first, that the advice of its legal service deserves particular protection,
To potrditev zavrnitve dostopa je v bistvenem utemeljil z dejstvom, da so na eni strani mnenja
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P because it is an important instrument which enables the Council to be sure of the compatibility of its acts with Community law and to move forward the discussion of the legal aspects at issue.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P njegove pravne službe upravičena do posebnega varstva, ker so pomemben instrument, ki mu omogoča, da se prepriča o skladnosti svojih aktov s pravom Skupnosti in da pospe�i razpravo o spornih pravnih vidikih.
Secondly, disclosure of the legal service’s opinions could create uncertainty regarding the legality of legislative acts adopted further to those opinions and, therefore, jeopardise the legal certainty and stability of the Community legal order.
Na drugi strani bi lahko njihovo razkritje povzročilo negotovost glede zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, ki so bili sprejeti na podlagi navedenih mnenj, in torej oslabilo pravno varnost in stabilnost pravnega reda Skupnosti. V zvezi z javnim interesom, ki prevlada in na katerega se je skliceval M.
‘The Council considers that such an overriding public interest is not constituted by the mere fact that the release of those documents containing the legal service’s advice on legal questions arising in the debate on legislative initiatives would be in the general interest of increasing transparency and openness of the institution’s decisionmaking process.
„Svet meni, da tak odločilni javni interes ni vzpostavljen s samim dejstvom, da bi bilo razkritje teh dokumentov, ki vsebujejo mnenje pravne službe o pravnih vpra�anjih, postavljenih med razpravo o zakonodajnih pobudah, v splo�nem interesu povečanja preglednosti in odprtosti postopka odločanja institucije.
In fact, this criterion would apply to virtually all written opinions or similar documents of the legal service, thereby making it practically impossible for the Council to refuse access to any legal service opinion under Regulation No 1049/2001.
To merilo bi se lahko uporabilo za vsa pisna mnenja ali podobne dokumente pravne službe, s čimer bi bilo Svetu pravzaprav onemogočeno, da bi zavrnil dostop do katerega koli mnenja pravne službe na podlagi Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
The Council considers that such a result would be clearly contrary to the will of the legislator as it is expressed in Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, since it would deprive that provision of any practical effect.’
Svet meni, da bi bil tak izid očitno v nasprotju z voljo zakonodajalca, ki je izražena v členu 4(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, ker bi ta določba izgubila polni učinek.“
In support of that action, he raised, as regards the refusal of access to the legal opinion in question, a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which was divided into three parts.
V utemeljitev te tožbe je v zvezi z zavrnitvijo dostopa do spornega pravnega mnenja navedel en sam tožbeni razlog, razdeljen na tri točke, ki temelji na kr�itvi člena 4(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU iz člena 4(2) navedene uredbe, ki naj bi zajemala le pravna mnenja, izdelana v okviru sodnih postopkov.
Legal advice drawn up by the Council’s legal service in the context of court proceedings was already covered by the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje se je Svet zato lahko upravičeno oprl na izjemo, ki se nana�a na pravne nasvete iz člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t.
Consequently, according to the Court of First Instance, the Council could legitimately rely on the exception relating to legal advice which is set out in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in order to decide whether it should give the applicant access to the legal opinion in question.
1049/2001, da je določil, ali mora tožeči stranki dovoliti dostop do spornega pravnega mnenja.
Secondly and in the alternative, Mr Turco submitted that there had been a misapplication of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, as the Council was wrong to take the view that the opinions issued by its legal service, by their very nature, merit the protection which that provision ensures.
Drugič, M. Turco je podredno navedel nepravilno uporabo navedenega člena 4(2), ker naj bi Svet napačno menil, da so vsa mnenja njegove pravne službe glede na njihove značilnosti upravičena do varstva, ki se zagotavlja s to določbo.
Furthermore, the Council ought not to base its decisions on presumptions of a general nature and can decide on the application of the exception concerned only on a case-by-case basis, after a specific analysis of each legal opinion whose disclosure is sought.
Poleg tega naj Svet svojih odločb ne bi smel utemeljiti na splo�nih domnevah in bi lahko o uporabi zadevne izjeme odločil le v vsakem posameznem primeru po konkretni preučitvi vsakega pravnega mnenja, katerega razkritje se zahteva. M.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance held that disclosure of advice such as the legal opinion in question could, first, give rise to lingering doubts as to the lawfulness of legislative acts to which such advice relates and, secondly, could compromise the independence of the opinions of the Council’s legal service; thus the Council made no error of assessment in deciding that there was a general interest in the protection of legal opinions such as that in question.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da lahko razkritje takih mnenj, kot je zadevno pravno mnenje, na eni strani vzbudi dvom o zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, na katere se nana�ajo ta mnenja, in na drugi strani ogrozi neodvisnost mnenj pravne službe Sveta, zato Svet ni storil napake pri presoji, ko je odločil, da obstaja splo�ni interes za varstvo takih pravnih mnenj, kot je obravnavano.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance pointed out that the reasoning for the partial refusal of access to the legal opinion at issue and the decision to disclose the introductory paragraph thereof showed that the
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega poudarilo, da iz obrazložitve delne zavrnitve dostopa do spornega pravnega mnenja in odločbe o razkritju uvodnega odstavka izhaja, da je Svet
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P preučil vsebino navedenega mnenja.
In this connection, the Court of First Instance stated as follows in paragraphs 69 to 80 of the judgment under appeal:
V zvezi s tem je v točkah od 69 do 80 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo:
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL are compatible with Community law and to pursue the discussion of the legal aspects at issue.
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU s pravom Skupnosti in da se nadaljujejo razprave v zvezi z zadevnimi pravnimi stali�či.
It argues also that such disclosure could give rise to uncertainty as regards the legality of legislative acts adopted following such advice.
Navaja �e, da bi tako razkritje lahko povzročilo negotovost v zvezi z zakonitostjo normativnih aktov, sprejetih na podlagi teh mnenj.
However, the generality of the Council’s reasoning is justified by the fact that giving additional information, making particular reference to the contents of the legal opinion in question, would deprive the exception relied upon of its effect.
Svet splo�no obrazložitev upravičuje z dejstvom, da bi predložitev dodatnih informacij, na katere se vsebina spornega pravnega mnenja �e posebej sklicuje, sklicevani izjemi odvzela njen namen.
In that introductory paragraph, it is stated that the opinion in question contains the advice of the Council’s legal service on the question of the Community’s powers regarding access of third-country nationals to the labour market.
V tem uvodnem odstavku je nakazano, da sporno mnenje vsebuje nasvete pravne službe Sveta o vpra�anju pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju dostopa državljanov tretjih držav na trg [dela].
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P internal discussions on the question of the Community’s powers regarding access of third-country nationals to the labour market and, more widely, on the question of the legality of the legislative act to which it relates.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju dostopa državljanov tretjih držav na trg dela in �e �ir�e v zvezi z vpra�anjem zakonitosti zakonodajnega akta, na katerega se nana�a.
In that regard, the applicant has not explained how, in the circumstances of this case, disclosure of the legal opinion in question would help to protect the Council’s legal service from improper external influences.
Na tem mestu tožeča stranka ni razložila, koliko bi, v okoli�činah tega primera, razkritje spornega pravnega mnenja prispevalo k varovanju pravne službe Sveta pred nezakonitimi zunanjimi vplivi.
As regards that part of the plea, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraphs 82 to 85 of the judgment under appeal, that the Council was justified in considering that the overriding public interest capable of justifying the disclosure of a document
V zvezi s to točko tožbenega razloga je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 82 do 85 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je Svet utemeljeno menil, da se mora javni interes, ki prevlada in utemelji razkritje dokumenta, praviloma razlikovati od načel, na katera se
SWEDEN AND TURCO v COUNCIL must, as a general rule, be distinct from the principles relied upon by Mr Turco, which underlie Regulation No 1049/2001 in its entirety, stating:
Turco in na katerih v celoti temelji Uredba �t. 1049/2001, in pri tem navedlo:
‘82 … those principles are implemented by the provisions of Regulation No 1049/2001 as a whole, as evidenced by recitals 1 and 2 of the preamble, which refer explicitly to the principles of openness, of democracy and of greater participation of citizens in the decisionmaking process …
„82. […] treba [je] opozoriti, da se ta načela uresničujejo po vseh določbah Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, kot to potrjujeta uvodni izjavi 1 in 2 te uredbe, ki se izrecno sklicujeta na načela odprtosti, demokracije in tesnej�ega sodelovanja državljanov v postopku odločanja […].