natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De præjudicielle spørgsmål, der er stillet, falder således inden for fællesskabsrettens anvendelsesområde, selv om alle de relevante elementer i hovedsagen findes inden for en enkelt medlemsstat 16.
The questions referred thus fall within the scope of Community law, although all the elements of the dispute in the main procee -dings are confined to a single Member State. 16
14 — Det er klart, at artikel 43 EF og 49 EF finder anvendelse, eftersom koncessionsaftalen er indgået af en kommune, der handler som en offentlig myndighed.
14 — The application of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC is perfectly justified inasmuch as the concession was concluded by a municipal authority acting in its capacity as a public authority.
Det er derfor principperne om den frie bevægelighed, som fastsættes i disse artikler, der finder anvendelse.
Therefore, the principles of freedom of movement, arising from those articles apply.
Denne vurdering bekræftes i dom af 4.5.1988, Bodson (sag 30/87, Sml. s. 2479, præmis 18), hvori det følgelig fastslås, at artikel 81 EF ikke omfatter koncessionsaftaler som de omhandlede.
See the confirmation of this analysis, which accordingly excludes the application of Article 81 EC to concession contracts such as those at issue, in Case 30/87 Bodson [1988] ECR 2479, paragraph 18.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT POIARES MADURO — SAG C-347/06
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-347/06
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der foreligger en hindring opfyldt.
The existence of an obstacle transparency.
Hvis en koncessionskontrakt tildeles direkte, uden at en virksomhed, der eventuelt er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, har haft mulighed for at få adgang til de nødvendige oplysninger om den omhandlede kontrakt og været i stand til at tilkendegive sin interesse, strider det derfor mod principperne i artikel 43 EF og 49 EF.
In addition, the direct grant of a concession, without the possibility for any undertaking established in another Member State to gain access to relevant information concerning the concession for the purpose of expressing its interest, is contrary to the principles which stem from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Domstolen har flere gange præciseret kravene i artikel 43 EF og 49 EF og principperne om ligebehandling, forbud mod forskelsbehandling og gennemsigtighed i forbindelse med koncessionsaftaler, navnlig i dommene i sagerne Telaustria og Telefonadress, Coname og Parking Brixen.
The requirements which stem from Art -icles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency have been set out repeatedly by the Court in relation to concession contracts, in particular in the judgments in Telaustria and Telefonadress, Coname and Parking Brixen.
Denne retspraksis stadfæster princippet om, at alle koncessionsaftaler fremover skal underlægges mindstekrav til konkurrencen og til gennemsigtighed og ligebehandling for at nå målet om at fjerne hindringer for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
Those decisions lay down the principle that thereafter the grant of any concession be subject to at least a minimum level of competition, by ensuring compliance with a minimum obligation of transparency and equal treatment in order to comply with the objective of removing obstacles to the freedom to provide services.
Ifølge Telaustria og Telefonadressdommen påhviler der den ordregivende myndighed en vis gennemsigtighedsforpligtelse, der består i »at sikre en passende grad af offentlighed til fordel for enhver potentiel tilbudsgiver, der gør det muligt at åbne markedet for tjenesteydelserne for konkurrence og at kontrollere, at udbudsprocedurerne er upartiske« 17.
First, the judgment in Telaustria and Telefonadress laid down the principle of a minimum obligation of transparency on the contracting authority which consists ‘in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed’.
Dette krav, der følger af traktatens grundlæggende regler i almindelighed og princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling i særdeleshed, bevirker ikke, at der altid skal afholdes udbud, men at der skal sikres en passende grad af offentlighed.
17That requirement, which stems from the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination, in particu- lar, does not require systematic recourse to a call for tenders but is limited to requiring a sufficient degree of advertising.
Domstolen har desuden præciseret, hvilke forpligtelser medlemsstaterne har i forbindelse med tildeling af nye tjenesteydelseskoncessioner.
Furthermore, the Court has defined the obligations on Member States concerning the conclusion of any new service concession.
I Parking Brixen-dommen fastslog Domstolen, at det heraf følger, at »medlemsstaterne ikke må opretholde national lovgivning, der tillader tildeling af offentlige tjenesteydelseskoncessioner uden at afholde offentlige udbud, da en sådan tildeling er i strid med artikel 43 EF og artikel 49 EF samt principperne om ligebehandling, om forbud mod forskelsbehandling og om gennemsigtighed« 18.
In the judgment in Parking Brixen, the Community judicature concluded that ‘the Member States must not maintain in force national legislation which permits the award of public service concessions without their being put out to competition since such an award infringes Article 43 EC or 49 EC or the principles of equal treatment, non-dis -crimination and transparency’.
Hvis der slet ikke afholdes udbud i forbindelse med koncessioner, der skal tildeles på ny, er der med andre ord tale om en hindring for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser og/eller etableringsfriheden.
18In other words, the absence of any possibility of putting out to competition concessions which are to be newly granted constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services and/or that of establishment.
ASM BRESCIA artikel 43 EF og 49 EF at forny en offentlig tjenesteydelseskoncession uden at afholde en udbudsprocedure for potentielle operatører 19.
ASM BRESCIA held that the renewal of a public service concession without inviting competing bids between the potential operators also constituted an infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Det står således fast, at hver tildeling af en ny koncession og hver fornyelse af en eksisterende koncession, som sker, uden at der sikres en passende offentlighed, udgør en tilsidesættelse af principperne om den frie bevægelighed.
19It is thus established that any award of a new concession and any renewal of an existing concession without a sufficient degree of advertising constitute a breach of the principles of freedom of movement.
tjenesteydelseskoncessioner, der oprindeligt blev tildelt uden afholdelse af en udbudsprocedure, før det planlagte tidspunkt, bestemmes det dog i de omhandlede regler, at koncessionerne opretholdes indtil udløbet af den fastsatte overgangsperiode.
the objective of early termination of service concessions originally granted without any tendering procedure, nevertheless in the legislation at issue it provided for them to be maintained in force until the expiry of a transitional period which it defined.
Et sådant lovindgreb bevirker derfor, at adgangen til distribution af gas begrænses for potentielle operatører fra andre medlemsstater i hele den overgangsperiode, der er fastsat.
Therefore, the effect of such legislative action is to restrict access to gas distribution for any potential operator from another Member State for the entire duration of the transitional period which it introduced.
Reglerne udgør således en restriktion for den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser og/eller etableringsfriheden, fordi de ikke giver potentielle operatører, der er etableret i andre medlemsstater, adgang til de nævnte koncessioner.
Such legislation therefore constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services and/or that of establishment in not enabling potential operators established in other Member States to obtain access to those concessions.
Denne fortolkning omhandler dog kun den enkelte beslutning om tildeling og/eller fornyelse af en koncession.
However, that interpretation relates only to the decision to award and/or to renew a concession.
Domstolens fortolkning vedrører således ikke koncessioner på tjenesteydelser som sådan, men beslutninger om tildeling eller fornyelse af disse koncessioner. Det kan derfor indvendes, at det er forkert at udvide Domstolens tidligere fortolkning, navnlig i Conamedommen, til koncessioner, der oprindeligt er tildelt uden afholdelse af udbud, og som endnu ikke er udløbet, hvilket betyder, at den kompetente myndighed hverken har truffet en beslutning om tildeling eller en beslutning om fornyelse.
The interpretation thus extracted by the Court applies not to concessions of services, as such, but to decisions to award or renew them, so that it could be argued that it would be wrong to extend that interpretation, previously formulated by the Court, in particular in Coname, to concessions originally granted without being put out to tender where they have not expired, so that there would be neither a decision to award nor a decision to renew on the part of the contracting authority.
Jeg mener dog, at det forholder sig anderledes i hovedsagen, eftersom den italienske lovgiver har grebet ind, og indgrebet har samme virkning som en beslutning om at forny en koncession.
However, in my opinion, the case in the main proceedings may be distinguished from that case, in that the Italian legislature acted and its action had the same effect as a decision to renew a concession.
Selv om den italienske lovgivers hensigt var at ophæve
Although the Italian legislature intended to pursue
Sagen drejede sig om koncessioner på afholdelse af hestevæddeløb, som blev fornyet, uden at der blev iværksat udbud.
That case concerned the renewal of concessions for the operation of betting on horse races which had occurred without a call for tenders.
Domstolen mener, at en sådan fornyelse »hindrer […] dels at de nævnte koncessioner åbnes for konkurrence, dels at det kontrolleres, at udbudsprocedurerne er upartiske«.
The Court held that such a renewal ‘precludes the openingup to competition of the licences and review of the impartiality of the procurement procedures’.
Selv om Domstolen måtte være uenig med mig på dette punkt, mener jeg dog alligevel, at der er tale om en hindring.
Furthermore, even if the Court did not agree with me on that point, in my view the classification as an obstacle should be maintained.
For at sikre den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser og etableringsfriheden er det under alle omstændigheder nødvendigt at liberalisere adgangen til eksisterende koncessioner, som oprindeligt blev tildelt i strid med traktatens regler.
The objective pursued by the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment entails, in any event, the openingup to competition of existing concessions originally granted in breach of the rules of the Treaty.
Disse koncessioner, der som oftest er indgået for en meget lang periode, fastholder de etablerede operatørers privilegerede position.
Such concessions, concluded generally for an extremely long period, maintain the traditional operators in a privileged position.
De holder frem for alt nye aktører væk fra markedet.
They are an obstacle, above all, to any new entrant on the market.
Potentielle operatører fra andre medlemsstater forhindres således i at trænge ind på det pågældende marked i hele den periode, hvor den koncession, der er tildelt i strid med fællesskabsretten, er gældende.
The potential operators from other Member States are thus prevented, for the entire duration of the concession granted in breach of Community law, from penetrating the relevant market.
Koncessionerne blokerer derfor i sig selv for adgangen til det pågældende marked ved at beskytte den position, som de nationale operatører har opnået.
They thus represent, by their nature, and by their intrinsic quality, a brake on access to the relevant market by protecting the positions acquired by national operators.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT POIARES MADURO — SAG C-347/06
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-347/06 because of exceptional circumstances linked with the requirements of legal certainty, to limit in time the effects of that interpretation, it would have had to provide for such a limitation in the same judgment as ruled on the interpretation sought.
Medlemsstaterne har således pligt til at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at bringe deres nationale ret i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
It is for Member States to adopt the necessary measures to bring their national law into conformity with Community law.
Det fremgår både af artikel 86, stk. 1, EF, som gælder for offentlige virksomheder, der indrømmes eksklusive rettigheder, og af artikel 10, stk. 2, EF, sammenholdt med artikel 43 EF og 49 EF, såfremt koncessionshaveren ikke er omfattet af artikel 86 EF, at medlemsstaterne har pligt til at ophæve alle foranstaltninger, der strider mod traktaten, for at sikre, at fællesskabsretten gennemføres effektivt.
It follows both from Article 86(1) EC, where a public undertaking with exclusive or special rights is concerned, and from the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, where the concession-holder does not fall within the situation referred to in Article 86 EC, that States are under an obligation to eliminate all measures contrary to the Treaty, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Community law.
Det følger heraf, at medlemsstaterne ikke blot skal sikre, at potentielle operatører får mulighed for at afgive bud i forbindelse med tildeling af distributionskoncessioner eller fornyelse heraf, men også skal gøre alt for, at de koncessioner, der oprindeligt blev tildelt uden afholdelse af udbud, bringes i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
It follows from this that Member States are required not only to guarantee the puttingout to competition for potential operators when awarding distribution service concessions or renewing them, but also to do everything so that concessions originally granted without being put out to competition are rendered compliant with Community law.
Hvis det fastslås, at der foreligger en hindring, skal det dog også undersøges, om den restriktion, der er tale om i hovedsagen, kan begrundes i tvingende almene hensyn.
However, if the classification as an obstacle can be upheld, it is still necessary to examine whether the restriction at issue in the main proceedings can be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
Denne fortolkning følger af dommene i sagerne Telaustria og Telefonadress, Parking Blixen og Coname og gjaldt derfor for medlemsstaterne lige fra begyndelsen.
Such an interpretation is implicit in the judgments in Telaustria and Telefonadress, Parking Brixen and Coname, so that it was binding on Member States from the outset.
Den fortolkning, som Domstolen foretog i disse domme, er knyttet til artikel 43 EF og 49 EF og »belyser og præciserer […] betydningen og rækkevidden af den pågældende regel, således som den skal forstås og anvendes, henholdsvis burde have været forstået og anvendt fra sin ikrafttræden« 20.
The interpretation extracted by the Community judicature in those judgments forms part of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, it ‘clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of entry into force’.
I, s. 4625, præmis 30, af 15.12.1995, sag C-415/93, Bosman, Sml.
964, particularly p. 968.
I, s. 4921, præmis 142, og af 9.3.2000, sag C-437/97, EKW og Wein & Co., Sml. I, s. 1157, præmis 57, samt Meilicke-dommen, præmis 36. 20 — Dom af 27.3.1980, sag 61/79, Denkavit italiana, Sml. s. 1205, præmis 16, af 13.1.2004, sag C-453/00, Kühne & Heitz, Sml. I, s. 837, præmis 21, af 17.2.2005, forenede sager C-453/02 og C-462/02, Linneweber og Akritidis, Sml. I, s. 1131, præmis 41, og af 6.3.2007, sag C-292/04, Meilicke m.fl., Sml. I, s. 1835, præmis 34. 22 — Det er Kommissionen enig i. Jf. i denne retning også — selv om forfatterne mener, at en sådan forpligtelse kan udledes af direktiv 2003/55: G. Bouquet og E. Buttery, »Vers la fin du droit de préférence accordé aux concessionnaires de transport et de distribution d’électricité et de gaz«, AJDA, 2006, s. 964, på s. 968.
20 — Case 61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 16; Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837, paragraph 21; Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02 Linneweber and Akritidis [2005] ECR I-1131, paragraph 41; and Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, paragraph 34. I - 5656
Eventuelle begrundelser for begrænsningen af den frie bevægelighed beføjelser, dem 24.
Possible justifications freedom of movement
Retssikkerhedsprincippet og nærmere bestemt princippet om balancen i retsforholdene må i denne henseende betragtes som en gyldig grund for at indføre overgangsforanstaltninger.
On that basis, the principle of legal certainty and, more specifically, the principle of the stability of legal relations represent a convincing justification for the introduction of transitional measures.
Nationale foranstaltninger, der kan hæmme udøvelsen af de ved traktaten sikrede grundlæggende friheder, er kun berettigede, hvis de opfylder fire betingelser: De skal anvendes uden forskelsbehandling, de skal være begrundet i tvingende samfundsmæssige hensyn, de skal være egnede til at sikre virkeliggørelsen af det formål, de forfølger, og de må ikke gå ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at opnå formålet 23.
National measures which restrict the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty can be justified only if they fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. 23
Efter min opfattelse finder beskyttelsen af balancen i gyldigt stiftede retsforhold i en vis udstrækning genklang i de aftaler om offentlige tjenesteydelseskoncessioner, der blev tildelt forud for dommen i Telaustria- og Telefonadress-sagen, og det er derfor berettiget at træffe overgangsforanstaltninger for at fastsætte en rimelig frist til at efterkomme fællesskabsretten.
Protecting the stability of legitimately established legal relations appears to me to find a certain echo in the context of the public service concessions concluded prior to Telaustria and Telefonadress to the point of justifying transitional measures with the object of allowing a reasonable period during which conformity with Community law will have to be achieved.
For så vidt som undtagelserne i traktaten ikke finder anvendelse i det foreliggende tilfælde, er det spørgsmålet, om der foreligger tvingende almene hensyn.
Concerning the existence of overriding reasons relating to the public interest, inasmuch as the exceptions provided for by the Treaty are not applicable to the present case, the parties essentially base their arguments on the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations to justify the introduction of a transitional period.
Parternes argumenter for at indføre en overgangsperiode er først og fremmest baseret på principperne om retssikkerheden og om den berettigede forventning.
As the judgment in Telaustria and Telefonadress was not delivered until 2000, the parties could thus, at the time when the concession was granted in 1984, legitimately, until that judgment intervened, hold the view that they were not in breach of Community law.
Retssikkerhedsprincippet kan betragtes som et af de tvingende almene hensyn, som medlemsstaterne kan påberåbe sig.
It is possible to regard the principle of legal certainty as one of the overriding reasons relating to the public interest which Member States may claim applies.
Domstolen har således allerede bemærket, at dette princip, der udgør en del af Fællesskabets retsorden, skal overholdes af fællesskabsinstitutionerne, men også af medlemsstaterne i forbindelse med udøvelsen af de
The Court has had occasion to point out that that principle, which forms part of the Community legal order, applies not only to the Community institutions, but also to the Member
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT POIARES MADURO — SAG C-347/06 fastsættelse af en overgangsperiode er baseret på objektive, gennemsigtige og ikkediskriminerende kriterier, og at foranstaltningerne står i rimeligt forhold til det mål, der skal nås 27.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-347/06 of a transitional period comply with object- ive, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria and that those measures remain proportionate to the objective pursued. 27
Under disse omstændigheder og i betragtning af de negative konsekvenser, som en sådan retspraksis med tilbagevirkende kraft vil få, navnlig for koncessionshaveren, der har foretaget store investeringer for at kunne indgå en langsigtet aftale, kan det være begrundet i et tvingende alment hensyn at træffe overgangsforanstaltninger for at begrænse ulemperne for bestående kontraktforhold og dermed overholde retssikkerhedsprincippet.
In those circumstances and in the light of the negative consequences of such caselaw with retroactive effect, particularly for a concession-holder who has invested significantly, thereby justifying the grant of a longterm contract, the introduction of transitional measures, with the object of limiting the adverse effect on existing contractual arrangements and thus of complying with the principle of legal certainty, may constitute an overriding reason relating to the public interest.
De to første præjudicielle spørgsmål bør derfor besvares således:
It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the first two questions referred must be as follows:
Domstolen har til støtte for denne anskuelse fastslået, at når »de omhandlede fællesskabsbestemmelser giver de kompetente nationale myndigheder den fornødne frihed ved anvendelsen heraf, således at de kan tilgodese principperne om beskyttelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder« 25, påhviler det »medlemsstaterne i videst muligt omfang at anvende disse bestemmelser således, at de nævnte principper ikke tilsidesættes« 26.
In support of that argument, the Court thus held that where ‘the Community regulations in question … leave the competent national authorities a sufficiently wide margin of appreciation to enable them to apply those rules in a manner consistent with the requirements of the protection of fundamental rights’, 25then ‘the Member States must, as far as possible, apply those rules in accordance with those requirements’. 26
Så længe fællesskabslovgiver ikke har udstedt nye regler om tjenesteydelseskoncessioner, må det dog antages, at medlemsstaterne har den fornødne frihed til at opfylde kravene til retssikkerheden, når de anvender princippet om, at der skal sikres et mindstemål af konkurrence ved indgåelsen af sådanne aftaler.
Concerning the service concessions and pending the intervention of the Community legislature in that specific field, Member States may be considered to have a discretion which is sufficiently wide to authorise them to take into account the requirements connected with legal certainty in the context of the application of the principle of the minimal openingup of such contracts to competition.
Det tilkommer imidlertid den nationale ret at vurdere, om betingelserne for
It will, however, be for the national court to assess whether the conditions for the grant
27 — Jf. bl.a. dom af 6.3.2007, forenede sager C-338/04, C-359/04 og C-360/04, Placanica m.fl., Sml. I, s. 1891, præmis 49, og Centro Europa 7-dommen, præmis 103.
27 — See, inter alia, Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 49, and Centro Europa 7, paragraph 103.