natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In awarding public supply contracts the contracting authorities shall apply the procedures defined in Article 1(d), (e) and (f), in the cases set out below.
Pri oddaji javnih naročil blaga morajo naročniki v spodaj določenih primerih uporabljati postopke, ki so opredeljeni v členu 1(d), (e) in (f).
The contracting authorities may award their supply contracts by negotiated procedure in the case of irregular tenders in response to an open or restricted procedure or in the case of tenders which are unacceptable under national provisions that are in accordance with provisions of Title IV, in so far as the original terms for the contract are not substantially altered.
Naročniki lahko oddajo svoja javna naročila blaga po postopkih s pogajanji v primeru neuspelih oddaj naročil z odprtim ali omejenim postopkom, ali v primeru postopkov oddaj naročil, ki so nesprejemljivi po nacionalnih predpisih, skladnih z določbami v Naslovu IV, če se prvotna merila naročila bistveno ne spremenijo.
The contracting authorities shall in these cases publish a tender notice unless they include in such negotiated procedures all the enterprises satisfying the criteria of Articles 20 to 24 which, during the prior open or restricted procedure, have submitted tenders in accordance with the formal requirements of the tendering procedure.
V takih primerih morajo naročniki objaviti obvestilo o oddaji naročila, razen če v tak�ne postopke s pogajanji, ne vključijo vseh podjetij, ki zadovoljujejo merila iz členov 20 do 24, in ki so v teku predhodnega odprtega ali omejenega postopka predložila ponudbe v skladu s formalnimi zahtevami postopka oddaje naročila.
(c) when, for technical or artistic reasons, or for reasons connected with protection of exclusive rights, the products supplied may be manufactured or delivered only by a particular supplier;
[…] c) ko zaradi tehničnih ali umetni�kih razlogov ali zaradi razlogov povezanih z varovanjem izključnih pravic naročeno blago lahko proizvede ali dobavi samo določen dobavitelj;
(e) for additional deliver[ies] by the original supplier which are intended either as a partial replacement of normal supplies or installations or as the extension of existing supplies or installations where a change of supplier would oblige the contracting authority to acquire material having different technical characteristics which would result in incompatibility or disproportionate technical difficulties in operation and maintenance.
[…] e) za dodatna naročila prvotnih dobaviteljev, ki so mi�ljena ali kot delno nadomestilo normalnih dobav oziroma instalacij ali kot raz�iritev obstoječih dobav ali instalacij, če bi zamenjava dobavitelja naročnika obvezala k naročilu blaga z drugačnimi tehničnimi specifikacijami, kar bi imelo za posledico nezdružljivost oziroma velike tehnične težave pri delovanju in vzdrževanju.
The length of such contracts as well as that of recurrent contracts may, as a general rule, not exceed three years.’
Velja splo�no pravilo, da trajanje tak�nih naročil kot tudi dolžina ponavljajočih se naročil ne bi smela biti dalj�a od treh let.“
Article 33 of Directive 93/36 is worded as follows:
Člen 33 Direktive 93/36 ima naslednje besedilo:
‘Directive 77/62/EEC … is hereby repealed, without prejudice to the obligation of the Member States concerning the deadlines for transposition into national law and for application indicated in Annex V.
„S tem se razveljavi Direktiva 77/62/EGS […], kar ne zadrži izpolnjevanja obveznosti držav članic glede skrajnih rokov za vgraditev v nacionalne zakone in za določila, navedena v Prilogi V.
References to the repealed Directives shall be construed as reference to this Directive and should be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex VI.’
Sklicevanje na razveljavljene direktive se tolmači kot sklicevanje na to direktivo in se mora brati v skladu s korelacijsko tabelo, zapisano v Prilogi VI.“
Since the Commission was unaware of any information pertaining to the organisation of a tendering procedure at Community level for the supply of helicopters to meet the requirements of various corps of the Italian State, it considered that such Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters had been purchased directly, without any competitive tendering procedure at Community level, in breach of the provisions of Directives 77/62 and 93/36.
Ker Komisija nima na voljo nobenih podatkov o organizaciji postopka javnega razpisa na ravni Skupnosti za dobavo helikopterjev za potrebe različnih korpusov italijanske države, je izhajala iz tega, da so bili helikopterji znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell kupljeni neposredno brez kakr�nega koli razpisnega postopka na ravni Skupnosti s kr�itvijo določb direktiv 77/62 in 93/36.
Accordingly, on 17 October 2003, it sent the Italian Republic a letter of formal notice, inviting it to present its observations within a period of 21 days from the receipt of that letter.
Zato je 17. oktobra 2003 na Italijansko republiko naslovila pisni opomin ter jo pozvala, da predloži svoje pripombe v roku 21 dni od prejetja opomina.
The Italian authorities replied to that letter by fax of 9 December 2003.
Italijanski organi so na ta opomin odgovorili s telefaksom z dne 9. decembra 2003.
Since it considered that the Italian authorities had not provided sufficient arguments to refute the observations formulated in the letter of formal notice, and in the absence of further communication from them, the Commission, on 5 February 2004, sent the Italian Republic a reasoned opinion, inviting it to comply therewith within a period of two months from its notification.
Ker je Komisija menila, da italijanski organi niso posredovali zadostnih argumentov, da bi ovrgli stali�ča, oblikovana v pisnem opominu, in ker niso sporočili ničesar več, je na Italijansko republiko 5. februarja 2004 naslovila obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem jo je pozvala, da se z njim uskladi v roku dveh mesecev od njegove vročitve.
The Italian authorities replied to that reasoned opinion by three letters of 5 April, 13 May and 27 May 2004.
Italijanski organi so na navedeno mnenje odgovorili s tremi dopisi z dne 5. aprila, 13. in 27. maja 2004.
Since it considered that the Italian Republic’s arguments in reply to the reasoned opinion were insufficient and finding that it had adopted no measure intended to terminate the impugned practice in awarding public supply contracts, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Ker je Komisija menila, da so argumenti, ki jih je navedla Italijanska republika v odgovor na obrazloženo mnenje, nezadostni, in ugotovila, da slednja ni sprejela nobenega ukrepa za prenehanje sporne prakse dodeljevanja javnih naročil, se je odločila vložiti to tožbo.
The Italian Republic pleads that the action is inadmissible on the ground that the Commission made no complaint, in the prelitigation procedure, about contracts for military supplies.
Italijanska republika navaja, da je tožba nedopustna, ker Komisija v predhodnem postopku ni izpodbijala voja�kih naročil blaga.
Only civilian supplies were in question.
Šlo je samo za civilne dobave blaga.
Consequently, there are divergences between, on the one hand, the complaints made in the course of the prelitigation procedure and, on the other, those formulated in the present action.
Zato očitki, navedeni med predhodnim postopkom, ne ustrezajo očitkom, navedenim v tej tožbi.
The Italian Republic submits also that the part of the action covering the supply contracts concluded for the requirements of the Corpo forestale dello Stato (State Forestry Corps) is inadmissible.
Italijanska republika tudi meni, da je del tožbe, ki se nana�a na naročila za dobavo blaga, sklenjena za potrebe Corpo forestale dello Stato (nacionalna uprava za gozdove), nedopusten.
It is contrary to the principle of no double jeopardy,
Dejansko bi bilo načelo ne bis in idem kr�eno, ker je Sodi�če
2008 — CASE C-337/05 since the failure to fulfil obligations relating to that category of contracts has already been examined and determined by the Court in Case C-525/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I-9405.
2008 – ZADEVA C-337/05 neizpolnitev obveznosti v zvezi s to kategorijo že preučilo in o njej presodilo v sodbi z dne 27. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-525/03, ZOdl., str. I-9405).
In addition, in its rejoinder, the Italian Republic contends that, having regard to the vague and imprecise character of the facts reported by the Commission both in the letter of formal notice and in the reasoned opinion, the action does not satisfy the requirements of coherence and detail under the caselaw, which has gravely affected its rights of defence.
Poleg tega je Italijanska republika v svoji dupliki trdila, da glede na nejasna in nenatančna dejstva, ki jih je navedla Komisija v pisnem opominu ter v obrazloženem mnenju, tožba ne izpolnjuje zahtev skladnosti in natančnosti, ki jih nalaga sodna praksa, kar je resno kr�ilo njene pravice do obrambe.
The Commission counters that the prelitigation procedure never concerned military supplies, but concerned civilian supplies for, in particular, the requirements of certain military corps of the Italian State.
Komisija ugovarja temu, da se predhodni postopek nikoli ni nana�al na voja�ke dobave blaga, ampak da je zadeval civilne dobave blaga, med drugim za potrebe določenih voja�kih korpusov italijanske države.
It points out also that the subjectmatter of the proceedings which gave rise to the judgment in Commission v Italy, cited above, differed from that of the present action.
Poudarja tudi, da je imel postopek, ki je privedel do zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Italiji, drugačen predmet spora od predmeta te tožbe.
The proper conduct of that procedure thus constitutes an essential guarantee required by the EC Treaty in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned.
Zakonitost takega postopka pomeni osnovno jamstvo, ki ga zahteva Pogodba ES, da bi se zagotovilo varovanje pravic zadevne države članice.
It is only when that guarantee is observed that the contentious procedure before the Court can enable it to judge whether that State has in fact failed to fulfil the obligations which the Commission alleges it has breached (see, in particular, Case C-145/01 Commission v Italy [2003] ECR I-5581, paragraph 17).
Zgolj takrat, ko je to jamstvo spo�tovano, lahko kontradiktorni postopek pred Sodi�čem le-temu dopu�ča, da presodi, ali država članica dejansko ni izpolnila obveznosti, katere kr�itev zatrjuje Komisija (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 5. junija 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-145/01, Recueil, str. I-5581, točka 17).
It is in the light of that caselaw that it is necessary to examine whether the Commission has respected the rights of the defence with regard to the Italian Republic in the prelitigation procedure.
Ob upo�tevanju te sodne prakse je treba preučiti, ali je Komisija zagotovila spo�tovanje pravic obrambe Italijanske republike med predhodnim postopkom.
First, as regards the alleged divergences between the complaints made during the prelitigation procedure and those formulated before the Court, it suffices to state that the reasoned opinion and the application commencing the proceedings, which are in almost identical terms, are based on the same complaints.
Prvič, v zvezi z domnevnim neujemanjem očitkov, podanih med predhodnim postopkom, s tistimi, ki so bili navedeni pred Sodi�čem, je treba ugotoviti, da obrazloženo mnenje in tožba, ki imata skoraj enako besedilo, temeljita na istih očitkih.
Therefore, the Italian Republic’s argument to show that the complaints raised in the course of the prelitigation procedure do not correspond to those developed in that application cannot be accepted.
Zato argument Italijanske republike, s katerim ta sku�a pokazati, da očitki, navedeni med predhodnim postopkom, ne ustrezajo očitkom, razvitim v tej tožbi, ne more uspeti.
In this case, the Commission’s allegations in the prelitigation procedure were sufficiently clear to enable the Italian Republic to deploy its defence, as is shown by the course which that part of the procedure took.
V tej zadevi so bile navedbe Komisije med predhodnim postopkom dovolj jasne, da so Italijanski republiki omogočile, da razvije svojo obrambo, kot kaže tudi potek tega predhodnega postopka.
Thirdly, as regards the alleged breach of the principle of no double jeopardy, Case C-525/03 Commission v Italy, cited above, was a case with a completely different subjectmatter since, in that instance, the Commission’s action concerned an ordinance of the President of the Italian Council of Ministers authorising recourse to negotiated procedures by derogation from Community directives on public supply contracts, and the action was declared inadmissible since that ordinance had ceased to have any effect before the expiry of the period fixed in the reasoned opinion.
Tretjič, v zvezi z domnevno kr�itvijo načela ne bis in idem je treba navesti, da je bila zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 27. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji sprejeta zaradi zadeve, ki je imela popolnoma drugačen predmet: takratna tožba Komisije se je nana�ala na sklep predsednika Sveta ministrov, s katerim je bila dovoljena uporaba postopkov s pogajanji z odstopanjem od direktiv Skupnosti o javnih naročilih blaga, uporaba, ki je bila razgla�ena za nedopustno, ker je ta sklep izčrpal vse svoje učinke pred potekom roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju.
The subjectmatter of the present action is not a re-examination of the legality of the abovementioned ordinance, but concerns a longstanding practice of the Italian State of directly awarding contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters without any competitive tendering procedure at Community level.
Ta tožba pa nikakor nima za predmet ponovni preizkus zakonitosti zgoraj navedenega sklepa, ampak se nana�a na staro prakso italijanske države, ki zajema neposredno dodeljevanje naročil za nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell brez kakr�nega koli razpisnega postopka na ravni Skupnosti.
In support of its action, the Commission alleges that it has established the existence of a general practice of directly awarding contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to cover the requirements of various military and civilian corps of the Italian State.
V podporo svoje tožbe Komisija navaja, da je ugotovila splo�no prakso neposrednega dodeljevanja naročil za nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell za potrebe različnih voja�kih in civilnih korpusov italijanske države.
It refers to several contracts concluded in the period 2000 to 2003 with the Corpo dei Vigili del Fuoco (Corps of Fire Brigades), the Carabinieri, the Corpo Forestale dello Stato, the Guardia Costiera (Coastguard), the Guardia di Finanza (Revenue Guard Corps), the Polizia di Stato (State Police) and the Department of Civil Protection in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers.
Sklicuje se na več naročil, sklenjenih v letih od 2000 do 2003 s Corpo dei Vigili del Fuoco (gasilci), Carabinieri (karabinjeri), Corpo forestale dello Stato, Guardia Costiera (obalna straža), Guardia di Finanza (carinska uprava), Polizia di Stato (nacionalna policija) ter oddelek za civilno za�čito predsedstva Sveta ministrov.
As regards the period prior to the year 2000, the Italian authorities admitted having purchased Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters without any competitive tendering procedure.
Za obdobje pred letom 2000 naj bi italijanski organi priznali, da so kupili helikopterje znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell brez razpisnega postopka.
The Commission observes finally that the fleets of the State corps concerned are formed exclusively of such helicopters none of which was purchased following a competitive tendering procedure at Community level.
Komisija končno poudarja, da zadevne državne voja�ke flote sestavljajo izključno helikopterji navedenih znamk, med katerimi nobeden ni bil kupljen na podlagi razpisnega postopka na ravni Skupnosti.
Since those contracts satisfy the conditions specified by Directive 93/36, the Commission submits that they should have been the subject of an open or a restricted procedure, in compliance with Article 6 of that directive, but not of a negotiated procedure.
Ker ta naročila izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v Direktivi 93/36, Komisija meni, da bi morali biti predmet odprtega postopka ali omejenega postopka v skladu s členom 6 te direktive in ne postopka s pogajanji.
The Italian Republic contends, first of all, that the supplies intended for the military corps of the Italian State are covered by Articles 296 EC and 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36.
Italijanska republika najprej trdi, da so dobave, namenjene vojski italijanske države, zajete s členoma 296 ES ter 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36.
It submits that those provisions are applicable because the helicopters in question are ‘dual-use items’, that is to say, they may serve both military and civilian purposes.
Po mnenju te države članice je treba dejansko uporabiti te določbe, saj so zadevni helikopterji „blago z dvojno rabo“, to pomeni, da se lahko uporabljajo tako v civilne kot v voja�ke namene.
That Member State argues next that, because of the technical specificity of the helicopters and of the additional nature of the supplies in question, it could, pursuant to Article 6(3)(c) and (e) of Directive 93/36, use the negotiated procedure.
Navedena država članica nato trdi, da bi lahko zaradi tehničnih posebnosti helikopterjev in zato, ker je zadevna dobava predstavljala dodatno dobavo, uporabila postopek s pogajanji na podlagi člena 6(3)(c) in (e) Direktive 93/36.
Generally, it points out that its practice does not differ from that implemented in the majority of the Member States which produce helicopters.
Na splo�no poudarja, da njena praksa ni drugačna od prakse v večini držav članic, ki izdelujejo helikopterje.
The Italian Republic argues, finally, that, until the end of the 1990s, the relations of the Italian State with Agusta could be analysed as ‘in-house’ relations as referred to in Case C-107/98 Teckal [1999] ECR I-8121.
Italijanska republika nazadnje trdi, da se lahko odnosi italijanske države z družbo Agusta do konca 90. let označijo kot odnosi „in house“ v smislu sodbe z dne 18. novembra 1999 v zadevi Teckal (C-107/98, Recueil, str. I-8121).
At the outset, it is important to note that it is common ground between the parties that the value of the contracts in question exceeded the threshold fixed in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 93/36, capable of bringing them within the scope of that directive.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da se stranki strinjata, da zneski zadevnih naročil presegajo mejno vrednost, določeno v členu 5(1)(a) Direktive 93/36, zaradi česar se lahko uvrstijo na področje uporabe te direktive.
It must also be stated that the documents concerning the helicopter purchase contracts annexed to the Italian Republic’s defence confirm the Commission’s view that the purchase of those helicopters using the negotiated procedure was a consistent practice of long standing.
Navesti je treba tudi, da dokumenti k pogodbam o nakupu helikopterjev, ki so bili priloženi odgovoru na tožbo Italijanske republike, potrjujejo trditev Komisije, da je bil nakup navedenih helikopterjev na podlagi postopka s pogajanji del stalne in dolgoletne prakse.
— The ‘in-house’ relationship between the Italian State and Agusta
– Odnos „in house“ med italijansko državo in družbo Agusta
According to the Court’s settled caselaw, a call for tenders, under the directives relating to public procurement, is not compulsory, even if the contracting party is
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča javni razpis v skladu z direktivami o oddaji javnih naročil ni obvezen, čeprav sta sopogodbenik in naročnik pravno različna
COMMISSION v ITALY an entity legally distinct from the contracting authority, where two conditions are met.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI subjekta, kadar sta izpolnjena dva pogoja.
Therefore, it must be examined whether the two conditions required by the caselaw mentioned in the preceding paragraph are met with regard to Agusta.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali sta pogoja, ki ju zahteva sodna praksa iz prej�nje točke, glede družbe Agusta izpolnjena.
As regards the first condition, relating to the public authority’s control, it is important to note that the participation, even as a minority, of a private undertaking in the capital of a company in which the contracting authority in question is also a participant excludes in any event the possibility of that contracting authority exercising over that company a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments (see Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau, cited above, paragraph 49).
Glede prvega pogoja v zvezi z nadzorom javnega organa je treba spomniti, da – tudi samo manj�inska – udeležba zasebnega podjetja v kapitalu družbe, v kateri je udeležen tudi zadevni naročnik, v vsakem primeru izključuje možnost, da bi ta naročnik lahko nad to družbo izvr�eval podoben nadzor, kot ga izvaja nad svojimi službami (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Stadt Halle in RPL Lochau, točka 49).
In that regard, as is shown by the study annexed to the defence on the Italian State’s shareholdings in EFIM (Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industrie Manifatturiere), Finmeccanica and Agusta, the latter, which has, since its formation, been a company governed by private law, has, since 1974, always been a private company with government participation, that is to say a company whose capital is held in part by that State and in part by private shareholders.
V zvezi s tem iz �tudije o udeležbi italijanske države v EFIM (Ente Partecipazioni e Finanziamento Industrie Manifatturiere), Finmeccanica in družbi Agusta izhaja, da je bila slednja, ki je družba zasebnega prava od ustanovitve dalje, vedno od leta 1974 družba z me�anim kapitalom, to je družba, katere kapital je sestavljen deloma iz deležev, katerih imetnik je navedena država, in deloma iz deležev, katerih imetniki so zasebni delničarji.
Thus, since Agusta is a company in part open to private capital and therefore meets the criterion stated in paragraph 38 of the present judgment, the Italian State cannot exercise over that company a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments.
Prav tako je izključeno, ker je družba Agusta družba, deloma odprta za zasebni kapital, in torej izpolnjuje pogoj iz točke 38 te sodbe, da bi lahko italijanska država nad to družbo izvajala nadzor, ki bi bil podoben nadzoru, ki ga izvaja nad svojimi službami.
In such circumstances, and without the necessity of examining whether Agusta carries out the essential part of its activities with the concession-granting public authority, the Italian Republic’s argument that there is an ‘in-house’ relationship between that company and the Italian State must be rejected.
V teh okoli�činah, in ne da bi bilo treba preučiti vpra�anje, ali družba Agusta opravlja pretežni del svoje dejavnosti za javno družbo, ki podeljuje koncesijo, je treba argument Italijanske republike o obstoju odnosa „in house“ med to družbo in Italijansko republiko zavrniti.
— The legitimate requirements of national interest
– Upravičene zahteve v nacionalnem interesu
It should be noted at the outset that measures adopted by the Member States in connection with the legitimate requirements of national interest are not excluded in their entirety from the application of Community law solely because they are taken in the interests of public security or national defence (see, to that effect, Case C-186/01 Dory [2003] ECR I-2479, paragraph 30).
Uvodoma je treba spomniti, da ukrepi, ki jih države članice sprejmejo v okviru upravičenih zahtev v nacionalnem interesu, niso v celoti odvzeti od uporabe prava Skupnosti samo zaradi tega, ker so bili sprejeti v interesu javne varnosti ali nacionalne obrambe (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. marca 2003 v zadevi Dory, C-186/01, Recueil, str. I-2479, točka 30).
As the Court has already held, the Treaty provides for derogations applicable in situations which may involve public safety, in particular, in Articles 30 EC, 39 EC, 46 EC, 58 EC, 64 EC, 296 EC and 297 EC, which deal with exceptional and clearly defined cases.
Kot je Sodi�če že ugotovilo, Pogodba dejansko predvideva odstopanja, ki se lahko uporabijo zaradi javne varnosti, zlasti v členih 30 ES, 39 ES, 46 ES, 58 ES, 64 ES, 296 ES in 297 ES, ki se nana�ajo na izjemne in jasno določene primere.