natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It points out that Direct- ive 2000/35 applies, under Article 1 thereof, ‘to all payments made as remuneration for commercial transactions’ and specifically — as is evident from recital 22 in the preamble to the directive — regulates ‘all commercial transactions irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities, having regard to the fact that the latter handle a considerable volume of payments to business’.
Poudarja, da se v skladu z njenim členom 1 Direktiva 2000/35 uporablja »za vsa plačila kot prejemke v zvezi s trgovinskimi posli«, in sicer – kakor izhaja iz njene dvaindvajsete uvodne izjave – za »vse trgovinske posle, ne glede na to, ali potekajo med zasebnimi ali javnimi podjetji ali med podjetji in državnimi organi, ob upo�tevanju, da zadnji upravljajo z znatnim obsegom plačil podjetjem«.
Since the disputed national legislation treats private and public persons differently, Caffaro maintains that it is contrary to the wording and objectives of Directive 2000/35.
Ker sporna nacionalna zakonodaja različno obravnava zasebne in javne subjekte, je po mnenju Caffara v nasprotju z besedilom in namenom Direktive 2000/35.
It notes that the purpose of the directive is to ensure that the creditor can proceed immediately with forced execution once the enforceable title has been obtained.
Poudarja, da je smisel direktive zagotoviti, da lahko upnik k izvr�bi preide takoj, ko pridobi izvr�ilni naslov.
In its opinion, enforcement proceedings may be considered to be one of the types of proceedings in which the court settles a dispute and delivers a ruling of a judicial nature for the purposes of Article 234 EC, even where such proceedings are not intended to ascertain the existence of a particular right but their purpose consists in giving execution to an existing right.
Po njenem mnenju izvr�ilni postopek lahko �teje za postopek, v katerem sodi�če odloča o sporu in izda sodno odločbo v smislu člena 234 ES, čeprav ta postopek načeloma ni namenjen ugotovitvi obstoja določene pravice, temveč je njegov namen izvr�itev že obstoječe pravice.
In the case of the attachment of sums of money which the debtor holds with third parties, the executing court concludes the enforcement proceedings by issuing an order in which it assigns the sums of money held by the third party to the creditor bringing the action (ordinanza di assegnazione del credito).
V primeru rubeža sredstev dolžnika, ki jih ima v posesti tretji, izvr�ilni sodnik konča postopek izvr�be s sklepom, s katerim omogoči prenos sredstev, ki jih ima v posesti tretji, na upnika, ki v izvr�bi zahteva plačilo dolga (ordinanza di assegnazione del credito).
According to the Commission, such an order constitutes a ruling of a judicial nature.
Ta sklep po mnenju Komisije predstavlja sodno odločbo.
The national court must also in any event ascertain whether all the formal requirements have been met in the execution of the attachment.
Poleg tega mora nacionalno sodi�če vedno preveriti, ali so bile pri izvedbi rubeža spo�tovane vse formalne zahteve.
If there are found to have been irregularities, the attachment can be declared void by means of a ruling that is similarly of judicial nature.
V primeru nepravilnosti lahko rubež razglasi za ničnega, kar je prav tako sodna odločba.
According to settled caselaw, in order to determine whether the body making a reference is a court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 234 EC, it is necessary to take account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether it applies rules of law 9and whether it is independent and impartial.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba pri presoji, ali je predložitveni organ sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES, upo�tevati več meril, kot so zakonska podlaga organa, njegova trajnost, obvezna pristojnost, uporaba pravnih pravil 9ter njegova neodvisnost in nepristranskost. 10
10 Moreover, a national court falls within the definition of Article 234 EC only if there is a case pending before it and if it is
Poleg tega gre za sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES samo, če v zadevi �e ni bilo odločeno in če nacionalno sodi�če odloča v postopku, ki je namenjen izdaji sodne odločbe oz. prav-
As regards the question referred, the Commission maintains that the Italian legislation at issue does not comply with Dir -ective 2000/35.
Glede samega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje Komisija meni, da sporna italijanska zakonodaja ni v skladu z Direktivo 2000/35.
That directive applies to all commercial transactions, irrespective of the fact that they are carried out between undertakings and public authorities, and hence public bodies cannot be granted privileged treatment.
Ta direktiva se namreč nana�a na vse trgovinske posle ne glede na to, ali so sklenjeni s podjetji ali z državnimi organi, zato se državnih organov ne sme obravnavati ugodneje.
Moreover, according to the Commission, the period for obtaining an enforceable title would become meaningless if the creditor, after having obtained the enforceable title, had to wait a further 120
Poleg tega po njenem mnenju rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova izgubi svoj pomen, če mora upnik po pridobitvi
The national court may refer a called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature or to a final decision in the dispute.
Nacionalno sodi�če lahko Sodi�ču zastavi vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje neodvisno od tega, v kateri fazi je postopek, ki poteka pred njim.
The question of admissibility that arises in this case consists in establishing whether it can be considered that the national court can, in the case in point, give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a final decision in the dispute by means of a ruling of a judicial nature.
11 Vpra�anje, ki se v zvezi z dopustnostjo zastavlja v tej zadevi, je, ali lahko �tejemo, da nacionalno sodi�če v tej zadevi odloča v postopku, ki je namenjen pravnomočni odločitvi v sporu z izdajo sodne odločbe.
The request for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje je zato dopustno.
B — Analysis of the request for a preliminary ruling
B – Presoja odločanje
In the case at issue, execution was effected on the basis of a summary payment order granted in a special accelerated pro -cedure (procedimento di ingiunzione).
V konkretnem primeru je izvr�ba potekala na podlagi izvr�ilnega naloga, izdanega v posebnem skraj�anem postopku izvr�be (procedimento di ingiunzione).
12It is clear from the caselaw of the Court that when a reference for a preliminary ruling is made in proceedings of the kind pending in the present case, that reference is admissible.
12Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča jasno izhaja, da je, če je vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zastavljeno v postopku, kot je ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, tako vpra�anje dopustno.
13In its caselaw, the Court has also pointed out that for the purposes of defining the court within the meaning of Article 234 EC it is not relevant whether the proceedings before that court are inter
13 Sodi�če je v svoji sodni praksi tudi poudarilo, da za opredelitev sodi�ča v smislu člena 234 ES ni potrebno, da je postopek pred njim kontradiktorne
In the present case, the national court asks whether Directive 2000/35 precludes national legislation under which the forced execution of unchallenged claims can be initiated against public authorities only after a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the public
Predložitveno sodi�če v tej zadevi zastavlja vpra�anje, ali Direktiva 2000/35 nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, na podlagi katere se izvr�ba nespornih terjatev proti javni upravi lahko izvede �ele po poteku 120-dnev-nega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova
14 — Eurico Italia and Others, paragraph 11; Corsica Ferries, paragraph 12; and Job Centre, paragraph 9.
955, točka 4); sodba z dne 19. oktobra 1995 v zadevi Job Centre (C-111/94, Recueil, str.
In the literature, see, for example, Wegener, B., in Calliess, C. and Ruffert, M. (eds), EUV/EGV. Das Verfassungsrecht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grundrechtecharta.
I-3361, točka 9); sodba z dne 12. novembra 1998 v zadevi Victoria Film (C-134/97, Recueil, str. I-7023, točka 14); sodba z dne 30. novembra 2000 v zadevi Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund (C-195/98, Recueil, str.
2062, footnote 52.
I-10497, točka 25).
12 — The procedimento di ingiunzione (order for payment proced - ure) is governed by Articles 633 to 656 of the Code of Civil Procedure (GURI No 253 of 28 October 1940, as amended).
12 – Procedimento di ingiunzione je urejen v členih 633–656 italijanskega Zakona o civilnem postopku (Codice di procedura civile, Uradni list Italijanske republike �t.
With regard to this procedure in particular, see Franco, G., Guida al procedimento di ingiunzione, 3rd edition, Guiffrè Editore, Milan, 2001.
253 z dne 28.10.1940, s spremembami). Natančneje o tem postopku glej Franco, G., Guida al procedimento di ingiunzione, 3. izdaja, Giuffrè Editore, Milano 2001.
15 — Case 43/71 Politi [1971] ECR 1039, paragraph 5; Birra Dreher, paragraph 3; Simmenthal, paragraphs 8 and 9; and San Giorgio, paragraph 8. In the literature, see Gaitanides, C., in von der Groeben, H. and Schwarze, J. (eds), Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 6th edition, Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2003, Vol.
1039, točka 5); sodba z dne 21. februarja 1974 v zadevi Birra Dreher (162/73, Recueil, str.
4, commentary on Article 234 EC, p.
1453, točki 8-9); sodba z dne 9. novembra 1983 v zadevi San Giorgio (199/82, Recueil, str.
1405, paragraph 53.
1405, točka 53.
16The directive therefore constitutes minimum harmonisation 17 in combating late payment, and hence several of its provisions refer to the application of national provisions.
16 Direktiva torej predstavlja minimalno harmonizacijo 17na področju boja proti zamudam pri plačilih, zato v več določbah napotuje na uporabo določb nacionalnega prava.
authority.
javni upravi.
Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35 provides that Member States must ensure that the creditor can obtain an enforceable title for the recovery of an unchallenged claim normally within 90 days of lodging his action.
Člen 5(1) Direktive 2000/35 določa, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da lahko upnik izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve pridobi običajno v 90 dneh po vložitvi tožbe.
That article therefore sets the timelimit for obtaining the enforceable title, but it contains no provisions regarding the subsequent stage.
Ta člen torej določa rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova, ne vsebuje pa določb, ki se nana�ajo na fazo po pridobitvi izvr�ilnega naslova.
The question therefore arises whether the stage following the obtaining of the enforceable title can fall within the competence of the Community.
Zato se zastavlja vpra�anje, ali faza po pridobitvi izvr�ilnega naslova spada na področje pristojnosti Skupnosti.
In my analysis, I shall deal first with the question of the division of competence between the Community and the Member States in the context of Directive 2000/35 and then I shall interpret the provisions of the directive.
V svoji analizi bom najprej razpravljala o vpra�anju razmejitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami v okviru Direktive 2000/35, nato pa bom pre�la na razlago določb te direktive.
The reason why Directive 2000/35 only partly harmonises the mechanisms for preventing late payment stems from the fact that the Community does not have competence in matters not harmonised by the directive.
Razlog za to, da Direktiva 2000/35 mehanizme za preprečevanje zamud pri plačilih usklajuje le deloma, je v tem, da Skupnost na tistih področjih, ki jih direktiva ne usklajuje, nima pristojnosti.
In that regard, recital 12 states that the directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve an improvement in the working of the internal market and that it was adopted in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity.
V dvanajsti uvodni izjavi je v zvezi s tem navedeno, da ta direktiva ne gre dlje od tistega, kar je potrebno za doseganje izbolj�anja delovanja notranjega trga, in da je bilo pri njenem sprejetju upo�tevano načelo subsidiarnosti.
It is therefore important that the limits to the Community’s competence are not exceeded when interpreting this directive.
Zato je pomembno, da se tudi z razlago te direktive ne preseže meja pristojnosti Skupnosti.
The division of competence between the Community and the Member States in the context of Directive 2000/35
Razmejitev pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami v okviru Direktive 2000/35
In its caselaw, the Court has already set the limits of the competence of the Community in matters governed by Direct- ive 2000/35.
Sodi�če je v dosedanji sodni praksi že začrtalo meje pristojnosti Skupnosti na področjih, ki jih ureja ta direktiva.
For example, in Commission
Tako je,
16 — See Case C-302/05 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-10597, paragraph 23.
16 – Glej sodbo z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-302/05, ZOdl., str.
17 — To that effect, see Commission v Italy, paragraph 24; the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-306/06 Telecom v Deutsche Telekom [2008] ECR I-1923, point 35; and the judgment in that case, paragraph 21. In the literature, see Mengozzi, P., I ritardi di pagamento nelle transazioni commerciali. L’interpretazione delle norme nazionali di attuazione delle direttive comunitarie, Cedam, Padua, 2007, pp. 1 to 4.
I-10597, točka 24); sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Madura v zadevi Telecom proti Deutsche Telekom, predstavljene 18. oktobra 2007 (C-306/06, točka 35) in sodbo z dne 3. aprila 2008 v zadevi Telecom proti Deutsche Telekom (C-306/06, ZOdl., str.
Directive 2000/35 does not harmon- ise all the rules relating to late payments in commercial transactions since it governs only certain specific rules intended to combat such delays, namely, rules on interest for late payments (Article 3), retention of title (Article 4) and procedures for recovery
Direktiva 2000/35 ne usklajuje vseh pravil glede zamud pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih, temveč ureja le določene vidike preprečevanja teh zamud, na primer obresti v primeru zamud pri plačilih (člen 3), pridržek lastninske pravice (člen 4) in postopek izter-
20 In the QDQ Media case, 21the Court ruled that,
CAFFARO na primer, v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji 18, v zvezi s členom 4(1) te direktive, ki ureja
Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35 is not only the key provision which the Court is called upon to interpret in the present case but is also fundamental as regards the div -ision of competence between the Community and the Member States.
Prav člen 5(1) Direktive 2000/35, ki je ključna določba, ki jo mora Sodi�če razlagati v tej zadevi, je pomemben z vidika razmejitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami.
The importance of the question as to the division of competence is demonstrated in the way in which that article has evolved.
Na pomembnost vpra�anja razmejitve pristojnosti kaže že razvoj tega člena.
In the original proposal for Directive 2000/35, 24Article 5 provided that the Member States must ‘ensure that there is an accelerated debt recovery pro -cedure for undisputed debts’.
V prvotnem predlogu Direktive 2000/35 24je člen 5 določal, da morajo države članice „za nesporne terjatve zagotoviti pospe�en postopek izterjave“.
25 In the co-deci-sion procedure, the Council took the view that it did not fall within the competence of the Community to oblige the Member States to introduce a new procedure for the recovery of unchallenged claims.
25V postopku soodločanja je Svet ugotovil, da Skupnost nima pristojnosti od držav članic zahtevati, naj uvedejo nov postopek izterjave nespornih terjatev.
26 Nevertheless, since that provision was of fundamental importance in combating late payment in commercial transactions, the Council requested that it be amended so that the as Directive 2000/35 does not have a horizontal effect, it cannot of itself serve as the basis for an obligation to take account of the expenses of a lawyer acting for the creditor in judicial proceedings for the recovery of a claim if national law does not lay down such an obligation.
20 V zadevi QDQ Media 21je Sodi�če zaradi odsotnosti horizontalnega učinka Direktive 2000/35 odločilo, da ta direktiva ne more sama po sebi predstavljati temelja za obveznost upo�tevanja stro�kov za posredovanje odvetnika v korist upnika v sodnem postopku za poplačilo dolga, če taka obveznost ni predvidena v nacionalnem pravu.
Conversely, Advocate General Poiares Maduro maintained in Telecom v Deutsche Telekom 22that with reference to Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35, which governs the creditor’s right to interest for late payment, the problem of the division of competence does not arise, since that article makes no reference to the national law of the Member States. 23
Nasprotno pa je generalni pravobranilec Maduro v zadevi Telecom proti Deu -tsche Telekom 22 zavzel stali�če, da se v zvezi s členom 3(1)(c)(ii) Direktive 2000/35, ki ureja pravico upnika do zamudnih obresti, problem razmejitve pristojnosti ne pojavi, saj ta člen ne vsebuje nobenega napotila na pravne rede držav članic. 23
18 — Cited in footnote 16.19 — Ibid., paragraph 29.
19 – Ibid., točka 29.
20 — Ibid., paragraph 31. In the literature, see, for example, Montfort, C., ‘Opposabilité de la clause de réserve de propriété’, Revue Lamy droit des affaires, No 14/2007, p. 59.
20 – Ibid., točka 31. V teoriji glej, na primer, Montfort, C., Opposabilité de la clause de réserve et propriété, Revue Lamy droit des affaires, �t. 14/2007, str. 59.
21 — Case C-235/03 [2005] ECR I-1937.
21 – Sodba z dne 10. marca 2005 v zadevi QDQ Media (C-235/03, ZOdl., str. I-1937).
22 — Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Telecom v Deutsche Telekom.
22 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Madura, predstavljeni 18. oktobra 2007, v zadevi Telecom proti Deutsche Telekom (C-306/06, �e neobjavljeni v ZOdl.).
26 — Common Position (EC) No 36/1999 adopted by the Council on 29 July 1999 with a view to adopting Directive 1999/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 1999 C 284, p.
26 – Skupno stali�če Sveta �t. 36/1999 z dne 29. julija 1999 o sprejetju Direktive 1999/…/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih (UL C 284, 6.10.1999, str.
1), point (v) of the statement of reasons. In the literature, with regard to the common position, see Lardeux, G., ‘La lutte contre le retard de paiement dans les transactions commerciales: position commune du Conseil no 36/1999 du 29 juillet 1999 en vue de l’adoption d’une directive concernant la lutte contre le retard de paiement dans les transactions commerciales’, La semaine juridique. Entreprise et Affaires, No 35/2000, p. 1318.
1), točka (v) obrazložitve. V teoriji glej glede skupnega stali�ča Lardeux, G., La lutte contre le retard de paiement dans les transactions commerciales : position commune du Conseil no 36/1999 du 29 juillet 1999 en vue de l’adoption d’une directive concernant la lutte contre le retard de paiement dans les transactions commerciales, La semaine juridique. Entreprise et affaires, �t. 35/2000, str. 1318.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-265/07
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-265/07 uvedbi postopka za evropski plačilni nalog 31.
Member States were not obliged to introduce into their national law a new procedure for the recovery of undisputed debts but only to ensure, within the framework of existing procedures, that the creditor can obtain an enforceable title normally within 90 days of lodging the application. 27
Navedene uredbe imajo vpliv le na čezmejne izvr�ilne postopke, 32ne pa tudi na situa- njeno spremembo tako, da državam članicam ni treba uvesti novega postopka izterjave nespornih terjatev, temveč morajo v okviru obstoječih postopkov zagotoviti, da lahko upnik izvr�ilni naslov pridobi običajno v 90 dneh od vložitve tožbe.
The abovementioned regulations have effect only in relation to cross-border forced execution procedures, 32 and not in situations such as that involved in the main proceedings, where forced execution is effected within a single Member State.
27 cijo, kakr�na je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ko se izvr�ba opravlja znotraj ene države članice.
They were adopted on the basis of Article 61(c) EC, 33which provides for the adoption of measures in the field of judicial cooperation in accordance with Article 65 EC, which provides only for the adoption of measures in the field of judicial cooperation having cross-border implications.
Navedene uredbe so bile sprejete na podlagi člena 61(c) ES, 33ki omogoča sprejetje ukrepov na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v skladu s členom 65 ES; slednji omogoča le sprejetje ukrepov pravosodnega sodelovanja s čezmejnimi posledicami.
In the case in point, however, the situation is different, in that it is necessary to resolve the question of the division of competence between the Community and the Member States for execution procedures carried out within a single Member State.
V konkretnem primeru pa je situacija drugačna, saj gre za vpra�anje razmejitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami glede izvr�ilnih postopkov, ki se izvajajo znotraj ene države članice.
Directive 2000/35 is one of the pieces of Community legislation that affect the enforcement procedures of the Member States.
Direktivo 2000/35 �tejemo med predpise Skupnosti, ki vplivajo na izvr�ilne postopke držav članic.
On the one hand, it is necessary to understand the tendency of the Member States to
Po eni strani moramo razumeti težnje držav članic, da tisti del izvr�ilnih postopkov,
27 — Common Position (EC) No 36/1999, point (v) of the statement of reasons.
27 – Zgoraj navedeno Skupno stali�če Sveta �t. 36/1999, točka (v) obrazložitve.
28 — The first step in this area was taken with the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 301, p.
28 – Prvi korak je bil na tem področju narejen s Konvencijo o pristojnosti in izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, sklenjeno v Bruslju 27. septembra 1968 (UL L 299, 31.12.1972, str. 32; preči�čeno besedilo v UL C 27, 26.1.1998, str. 3), t. i.
This was the first legal instrument of the Member States of the Community governing conflicts of jurisdiction between the courts of the Member States and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Bruseljska konvencija. Ta konvencija je prvi pravni akt držav članic Skupnosti, ki ureja spore o pristojnosti med sodi�či držav članic in izvr�evanje sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
After the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which transferred new powers to the Community in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Po uveljavitvi Amsterdamske pogodbe, ki je na Skupnost prenesla nove pristojnosti na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah, je Svet sprejel Uredbo (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (UL L 12, 16.1.2001, str. 1).
This regulation replaced the Brussels Convention for all the Member States except Denmark. With regard to the Community’s jurisdiction in these fields, see, for example, Heß, B., ‘Die Europäisierungˮ des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts durch den Amsterdamer Vertrag — Chancen und Gefahren’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, No 1/2000, p. 23.
Ta uredba je nadomestila Bruseljsko konvencijo za vse države članice Skupnosti z izjemo Danske. O pristojnosti Skupnosti na tem področju glej, na primer, Heß, B., Die „Europäisierung“ des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts durch den Amsterdamer Vertrag – Chancen und Gefahren, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, �t. 1/2000, str. 23.