natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the Member States should ensure that effective and rapid remedies are available against decisions taken by contracting authorities and contracting entities as to whether a particular contract falls within the personal and material scope of Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti bi morale države članice zagotoviti učinkovita in hitra pravna sredstva zoper odločitve, ki jih naročniki sprejmejo glede tega, ali določeno javno naročilo sodi v osebno in vsebinsko področje uporabe direktiv 2004/18/ES in 2004/17/ES.
Consultations of the interested parties and the case law of the Court of Justice have revealed a certain number of weaknesses in the review mechanisms in the Member States.
Posvetovanja z zainteresiranimi stranmi in sodna praksa Sodišča so razkrili določeno število pomanjkljivosti v trenutno veljavnih mehanizmih revizijskih postopkov v državah članicah.
As a result of these weaknesses, the mechanisms established by Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC do not always make it possible to ensure compliance with Community law, especially at a time when infringements can still be corrected.
Te pomanjkljivosti so takšne, da mehanizmi, uvedeni v direktivah 89/665/EGS in 92/13/EGS, ne omogočajo vedno, da bi se zagotovila skladnost s pravom Skupnosti, zlasti na stopnji, ko bi se kršitve še lahko odpravile.
Consequently, the guarantees of transparency and non-discrimination sought by those Directives should be strengthened to ensure that the Community as a whole fully benefit from the positive effects of the modernisation and simplification of the rules on public procurement achieved by Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC.
Posledično bi bilo treba povečati zagotovila glede preglednosti in nediskriminacije, ki so cilj teh direktiv, za zagotovitev, da Skupnost kot celota v polnosti izkoristi pozitivne učinke posodobitve in poenostavitve predpisov o oddaji javnih naročil, doseženi z direktivama 2004/18/ES in 2004/17/ES.
Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC should therefore be amended by adding the essential clarifications which will allow the results intended by the Community legislature to be attained.
Zato bi bilo treba direktivi 89/665/EGS in 92/13/EGS spremeniti z dodajanjem bistvenih pojasnil, ki bodo omogočila dosego rezultatov, za katere si prizadeva zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
The weaknesses which were noted include in particular the absence of a period allowing an effective review between the decision to award a contract and the conclusion of the contract in question.
Med ugotovljenimi pomanjkljivostmi je zlasti dejstvo, da ni določen rok, ki bi omogočal učinkovito revizijo med odločitvijo o oddaji javnega naročila in sklenitvijo zadevne pogodbe.
This sometimes results in contracting authorities and contracting entities who wish to make irreversible the consequences of the disputed award decision proceeding very quickly to the signature of the contract.
To včasih povzroči, da naročniki, ki želijo, da bi posledice sporne odločitve o oddaji postale trajne, hitijo s podpisom pogodbe.
In order to remedy this weakness, which is a serious obstacle to effective judicial protection for the tenderers concerned, namely those tenderers who have not yet been definitively excluded, it is necessary to provide for a minimum standstill period during which the conclusion of the contract in question is suspended, irrespective of whether conclusion occurs at the time of signature of the contract or not.
Da bi odpravili to pomanjkljivost, ki močno ovira učinkovito sodno varstvo zadevnih ponudnikov, namreč tistih ponudnikov, ki še niso bili dokončno izključeni, bi bilo treba predvideti minimalno obdobje mirovanja, v katerem se sklenitev pogodbe odloži, ne glede na to, ali do sklenitve pogodbe pride ob podpisu pogodbe ali ne.
The duration of the minimum standstill period should take into account different means of communication.
Pri trajanju minimalnega obdobja mirovanja bi bilo treba upoštevati različna komunikacijska sredstva.
If rapid means of communication are used, a shorter period can be provided for than if other means of communication are used.
Če se uporabijo hitra komunikacijska sredstva, je lahko rok krajši kot v primeru, če se uporabijo druga komunikacijska sredstva.
This Directive only provides for minimum standstill periods.
Ta direktiva predvideva le minimalna obdobja mirovanja.
Member States are free to introduce or to maintain periods which exceed those minimum periods.
Države članice lahko same uvajajo in ohranjajo obdobja mirovanja, ki so daljša od minimalnih obdobij.
Member States are also free to decide which period should apply, if different means of communication are used cumulatively.
Poleg tega se lahko odločijo, katero obdobje se uporablja, kadar se različna komunikacijska sredstva uporabljajo kumulativno.
The standstill period should give the tenderers concerned sufficient time to examine the contract award decision and to assess whether it is appropriate to initiate a review procedure.
Obdobje mirovanja bi moralo zadevnim ponudnikom omogočati dovolj časa, da preučijo odločitev o oddaji naročila in ocenijo, ali je primerno sprožiti revizijski postopek.
When the award decision is notified to them, the tenderers concerned should be given the relevant information which is essential for them to seek effective review.
Ko se zadevnim ponudnikom sporoči odločitev o oddaji naročila, bi jim bilo treba dati ustrezne informacije, ki so bistvenega pomena pri zahtevanju učinkovitega revizijskega postopka.
The same applies accordingly to candidates to the extent that the contracting authority or contracting entity has not made available in due time information about the rejection of their application.
Enako velja za kandidate, ki jim naročnik ni pravočasno zagotovil informacij o zavrnitvi njihove prijave za sodelovanje.
Such relevant information includes, in particular, a summary of the relevant reasons as set out in Article 41 of Directive 2004/18/EC and Article 49 of Directive 2004/17/EC.
Te ustrezne informacije vključujejo še posebej povzetek ustreznih razlogov, kakor so določeni v členu 41 Direktive 2004/18/ES in v členu 49 Direktive 2004/17/ES.
As the duration of the standstill period varies from one Member State to another, it is also important that the tenderers and candidates concerned should be informed of the effective period available to them to bring review proceedings.
Ker je trajanje obdobja mirovanja po posameznih državah članicah različno, je pomembno tudi, da se zadevne ponudnike in kandidate obvesti o trajanju obdobja, v katerem lahko vložijo zahtevek za revizijo postopka.
This type of minimum standstill period is not intended to apply if Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2004/17/EC does not require prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, in particular in cases of extreme urgency as provided for in Article 31(1)(c) of Directive 2004/18/EC or Article 40(3)(d) of Directive 2004/17/EC.
Ta vrsta minimalnega obdobja mirovanja naj se ne bi uporabljala, če Direktiva 2004/18/ES ali Direktiva 2004/17/ES ne zahtevata predhodne objave obvestila o naročilu v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, zlasti v vseh skrajno nujnih primerih, določenih v členu 31(1)(c) Direktive 2004/18/ES ali členu 40(3)(d) Direktive 2004/17/ES.
In those cases it is sufficient to provide for effective review procedures after the conclusion of the contract.
V teh primerih zadostuje, da se zagotovijo učinkoviti revizijski postopki po sklenitvi pogodbe.
Similarly, a standstill period is not necessary if the only tenderer concerned is the one who is awarded the contract and there are no candidates concerned.
Podobno temu obdobje mirovanja ni potrebno, če je ponudnik, ki se mu naročilo odda, tudi edini zadevni ponudnik in to ne zadeva nobenega kandidata.
In this case there is no other person remaining in the tendering procedure with an interest in receiving the notification and in benefiting from a standstill period to allow for effective review.
V tem primeru v razpisnem postopku ni druge osebe, ki bi imela interes, da prejme obvestilo in izkoristi obdobje mirovanja, ki omogoča učinkovito revizijo.
Finally, in cases of contracts based on a framework agreement or a dynamic purchasing system, a mandatory standstill period could have an impact on the efficiency gains intended by those tendering procedures.
Nenazadnje lahko pri naročilih, ki temeljijo na okvirnem sporazumu ali dinamičnem nabavnem sistemu, obvezno obdobje mirovanja vpliva na učinkovitost, ki naj bi jo prinesli ti razpisni postopki.
Member States should be able therefore, instead of introducing a mandatory standstill period, to provide for ineffectiveness as an effective sanction in accordance with Article 2d of both Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC for infringements of the second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 32(4) and of Article 33(5) and (6) of Directive 2004/18/EC, and of Article 15(5) and (6) of Directive 2004/17/EC.
Zato bi lahko države članice namesto uvedbe obveznega obdobja mirovanja predvidele neveljavnost kot učinkovito kazen – v skladu s členom 2d direktiv 89/665/EGS in 92/13/EGS – za kršitve druge alinee drugega pododstavka člena 32(4), člena 33(5) in (6) Direktive 2004/18/ES ter člena 15(5) in (6) Direktive 2004/17/ES.
In the cases referred to in Article 40(3)(i) of Directive 2004/17/EC, contracts based on a framework agreement do not require prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.
V primerih iz člena 40(3)(i) Direktive 2004/17/ES za naročila na podlagi okvirnega sporazuma ni potrebna predhodna objava obvestila o javnem naročilu v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
In those cases a standstill period should not be mandatory.
V teh primerih obdobje mirovanja ne bi smelo biti obvezno.
When a Member State requires a person intending to use a review procedure to inform the contracting authority or contracting entity of that intention, it is necessary to make it clear that this should not affect the standstill period or any other period to apply for review.
Kadar država članica zahteva, da oseba, ki namerava uporabiti postopek revizije, o tem obvesti naročnika, je treba pojasniti, da to ne bi smelo vplivati na obdobje mirovanja ali katero koli drugo obdobje, v katerem se lahko zaprosi za revizijo.
Furthermore, when a Member State requires that the person concerned has first sought a review with the contracting authority or contracting entity, it is necessary that this person should have a reasonable minimum period within which to refer to the competent review body before the conclusion of the contract, in the event that that person should wish to challenge the reply or lack of reply from the contracting authority or contracting entity.
Poleg tega, kadar država članica zahteva, da mora zadevna oseba revizijo najprej zahtevati pri naročniku, bi bilo treba zagotoviti, da ima ta oseba na voljo razumen minimalni rok, da zadevo predloži pristojnemu revizijskemu organu pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, kadar bi želela ugovarjati odgovoru naročnika ali se odzvati na dejstvo, da ta odgovora ni predložil.
Seeking review shortly before the end of the minimum standstill period should not have the effect of depriving the body responsible for review procedures of the minimum time needed to act, in particular to extend the standstill period for the conclusion of the contract.
Uvedba revizije malo pred iztekom minimalnega obdobja mirovanja ne bi smela povzročiti, da organ, pristojen za revizijske postopke, ne bi imel minimalnega časa, potrebnega za ukrepanje, zlasti za podaljšanje roka za začasno odložitev sklenitve pogodbe.
It is thus necessary to provide for an independent minimum standstill period that should not end before the review body has taken a decision on the application.
Tako je treba predvideti neodvisno minimalno obdobje mirovanja, ki se ne bi smelo izteči, preden revizijski organ ne sprejme odločitve o zahtevku za revizijo.
This should not prevent the review body from making a prior assessment of whether the review as such is admissible.
To revizijskemu organu ne bi smelo preprečiti, da predhodno oceni, ali je revizija kot taka dopustna.
Member States may provide that this period shall end either when the review body has taken a decision on the application for interim measures, including on a further suspension of the conclusion of the contract, or when the review body has taken a decision on the merits of the case, in particular on the application for the setting aside of an unlawful decision.
Države članice lahko določijo, da se to obdobje izteče, ko revizijski organ sprejme odločitev o uporabi začasnih ukrepov, vključno z nadaljnjim odlogom sklenitve naročila, ali ko revizijski organ sprejme vsebinsko odločitev o zadevi, zlasti o uporabi razveljavitve nezakonitih odločitev.
In order to combat the illegal direct award of contracts, which the Court of Justice has called the most serious breach of Community law in the field of public procurement on the part of a contracting authority or contracting entity, there should be provision for effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.
Z namenom boja proti nezakoniti oddaji naročil na podlagi neposrednega dogovora, kar je Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti opredelilo kot najhujšo kršitev zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil s strani naročnika, bi bilo treba predvideti učinkovito, sorazmerno in odvračilno kazen.
Therefore a contract resulting from an illegal direct award should in principle be considered ineffective.
Zato bi bilo treba naročila, ki izvirajo iz nezakonite oddaje na podlagi neposrednega dogovora, načeloma šteti za neveljavna.
The ineffectiveness should not be automatic but should be ascertained by or should be the result of a decision of an independent review body.
Neveljavnost ne bi smela biti samodejna, temveč bi jo moral potrditi neodvisni revizijski organ ali pa bi morala biti rezultat njegove odločitve.
Ineffectiveness is the most effective way to restore competition and to create new business opportunities for those economic operators which have been deprived illegally of their opportunity to compete.
Neveljavnost je najučinkovitejši način ponovne vzpostavitve konkurenčnosti in ustvarjanja novih poslovnih priložnosti za tiste gospodarske subjekte, ki jim je bila priložnost za konkuriranje nezakonito odvzeta.
Direct awards within the meaning of this Directive should include all contract awards made without prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union within the meaning of Directive 2004/18/EC.
Oddaja naročil na podlagi neposrednega dogovora v smislu te direktive bi morala zajemati vsako oddajo naročila, ki ni bila predmet predhodnega obvestila o naročilu v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, v smislu Direktive 2004/18/ES.
This corresponds to a procedure without prior call for competition within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC.
To je v skladu s postopkom oddaje javnega naročila brez predhodnega javnega razpisa v smislu Direktive 2004/17/ES.
Possible justifications for a direct award within the meaning of this Directive may include the exemptions in Articles 10 to 18 of Directive 2004/18/EC, the application of Article 31, Article 61 or Article 68 of Directive 2004/18/EC, the award of a service contract in accordance with Article 21 of Directive 2004/18/EC or a lawful ‘in-house’ contract award following the interpretation of the Court of Justice.
Možne utemeljitve za oddajo naročila na podlagi neposrednega dogovora v smislu te direktive bi lahko vključevale izjeme iz členov 10 do 18 Direktive 2004/18/ES, uporabo členov 31, 61 ali 68 Direktive 2004/18/ES, oddajo naročila storitev v skladu s členom 21 Direktive 2004/18/ES ali zakonito oddajo naročila „znotraj naročnika“, kakor jo razlaga Sodišče.
The same applies to contracts which meet the conditions for an exclusion or special arrangements in accordance with Article 5(2), Articles 18 to 26, Articles 29 and 30 or Article 62 of Directive 2004/17/EC, to cases involving the application of Article 40(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC or to the award of a service contract in accordance with Article 32 of Directive 2004/17/EC.
Isto velja za javna naročila, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje za izključitev ali posebno ureditev v skladu s členi 5(2), 18 do 26, 29, 30 ali 62 Direktive 2004/17/ES, za primere, ki vključujejo uporabo člena 40(3) Direktive 2004/17/ES ali za oddajo naročila storitev v skladu s členom 32 Direktive 2004/17/ES.
A review procedure should be available at least to any person having or having had an interest in obtaining a particular contract and who has been or risks being harmed by an alleged infringement.
Revizijski postopek bi moral biti na voljo vsaj vsaki osebi, ki ima ali je imela interes, da bi dobila določeno naročilo, in ki je bila oškodovana ali pa ji grozi oškodovanje zaradi domnevne kršitve.
In order to prevent serious infringements of the standstill obligation and automatic suspension, which are prerequisites for effective review, effective sanctions should apply.
Za preprečitev hujših kršitev obdobja mirovanja in samodejne začasne prekinitve – spoštovanje teh obveznosti je predpogoj za učinkovito revizijo – bi se morale uporabiti učinkovite kazni.
Contracts that are concluded in breach of the standstill period or automatic suspension should therefore be considered ineffective in principle if they are combined with infringements of Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2004/17/EC to the extent that those infringements have affected the chances of the tenderer applying for review to obtain the contract.
Pogodbe, katerih sklenitev pomeni kršitev obdobja mirovanja in samodejne začasne prekinitve, bi se morala zato načeloma šteti za neveljavna v primeru, ko se hkrati kršijo določbe Direktive 2004/18/ES ali Direktive 2004/17/ES, v kolikor te kršitve vplivajo na možnosti ponudnika, ki zaprosi za revizijo, da bi pridobil javno naročilo.
In the case of other infringements of formal requirements, Member States might consider the principle of ineffectiveness to be inappropriate.
V primeru drugih kršitev formalnih zahtev lahko države članice odločijo, da je uporaba načela neveljavnosti neprimerna.
In those cases Member States should have the flexibility to provide for alternative penalties.
V teh primerih bi morale imeti države članice možnost, da določijo alternativne kazni.
Alternative penalties should be limited to the imposition of fines to be paid to a body independent of the contracting authority or entity or to a shortening of the duration of the contract.
Alternativne kazni bi morale biti omejene na odreditev globe, ki se plača organu ali telesu, ki je neodvisno od naročnika, ali skrajšanje trajanja pogodbe.
It is for Member States to determine the details of alternative penalties and the rules of their application.
Podrobnosti alternativnih kazni in pravila za njihovo uporabo določijo države članice.
This Directive should not exclude the application of stricter sanctions in accordance with national law.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela izključevati uporabe strožjih kazni, ki so v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
The objective to be achieved where Member States lay down the rules which ensure that a contract shall be considered ineffective is that the rights and obligations of the parties under the contract should cease to be enforced and performed.
S tem, da bi države članice določile pravila, s katerimi bi se zagotovilo, da se bo naročilo štelo za neveljavno, bi morali doseči, da bi se pravice in obveznosti, ki jih imata stranki iz naslova naročila, nehale uveljavljati in izvajati.
The consequences resulting from a contract being considered ineffective should be determined by national law.
Posledice, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da se naročilo šteje za neveljavno, bi bilo treba določiti z nacionalno zakonodajo.
National law may therefore, for example, provide for the retroactive cancellation of all contractual obligations (ex tunc) or conversely limit the scope of the cancellation to those obligations which would still have to be performed (ex nunc).
Z nacionalno zakonodajo se lahko denimo razveljavijo vse že izpolnjene pogodbene obveznosti z veljavnostjo za nazaj (ex tunc), ali pa se, nasprotno, omeji obseg razveljavitve na tiste obveznosti, ki bi jih bilo treba še izpolniti (ex nunc).
This should not lead to the absence of forceful penalties if the obligations deriving from a contract have already been fulfilled either entirely or almost entirely.
To ne bi smelo pripeljati do tega, da v primerih, ko so bile obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz naročila, že v celoti ali skoraj v celoti izpolnjene, ne bi obstajale učinkovite kazni.
In such cases Member States should provide for alternative penalties as well, taking into account the extent to which a contract remains in force in accordance with national law.
V takih primerih bi morale države članice zagotoviti tudi alternativne kazni, pri katerih bi se upoštevalo, v kolikšni meri določeno naročilo ostaja v veljavi v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
Similarly, the consequences concerning the possible recovery of any sums which may have been paid, as well as all other forms of possible restitution, including restitution in value where restitution in kind is not possible, are to be determined by national law.
Podobno se z nacionalno zakonodajo določijo posledice v zvezi z morebitno izterjavo zneskov, ki so morda že bili izplačani, in v zvezi z vsemi drugimi oblikami morebitnega povračila, vključno z denarnim nadomestilom, če nadomestilo v naravi ni možno.
However, in order to ensure the proportionality of the sanctions applied, Member States may grant the body responsible for review procedures the possibility of not jeopardising the contract or of recognising some or all of its temporal effects, when the exceptional circumstances of the case concerned require certain overriding reasons relating to a general interest to be respected.
Za zagotovitev sorazmernosti uporabljenih kazni pa lahko države članice organu, pristojnemu za revizijske postopke, dajo možnost, da naročila ne postavi pod vprašaj ali da prizna nekatere ali vse začasne učinke naročila, kadar izjemne okoliščine danega primera zahtevajo upoštevanje določenih nujnih ali neizbežnih razlogov splošnega interesa.
In those cases alternative penalties should be applied instead.
V teh primerih bi se morale uporabiti alternativne kazni.
The review body independent of the contracting authority or contracting entity should examine all relevant aspects in order to establish whether overriding reasons relating to a general interest require that the effects of the contract should be maintained.
Revizijski organ, neodvisen od naročnika, bi moral preučiti vse pomembne vidike, da bi ugotovil, ali prevladujoči razlogi splošnega interesa terjajo, da se učinki naročila ohranijo.
In exceptional cases the use of the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice within the meaning of Article 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC or Article 40(3) of Directive 2004/17/EC is permitted immediately after the cancellation of the contract.
V izjemnih primerih je uporaba postopka s pogajanji brez predhodne objave v smislu člena 31 Direktive 2004/18/ES ali člena 40(3) Direktive 2004/17/ES dovoljena takoj po razveljavitvi pogodbe.
If in those cases, for technical or other compelling reasons, the remaining contractual obligations can, at that stage, only be performed by the economic operator which has been awarded the contract, the application of overriding reasons might be justified.
Če lahko v teh primerih zaradi tehničnih in drugih tehtnih razlogov preostale pogodbene obveznosti na tej stopnji izpolni le gospodarski subjekt, ki mu je bilo naročilo oddano, je lahko uporaba prevladujočih razlogov upravičena.
Economic interests in the effectiveness of a contract may only be considered as overriding reasons if in exceptional circumstances ineffectiveness would lead to disproportionate consequences.
Ekonomski interesi v zvezi z veljavnostjo naročila se lahko kot prevladujoči razlogi upoštevajo le, če bi v izjemnih okoliščinah neveljavnost povzročila nesorazmerne posledice.