natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court has held that the only articles in which the Treaty provides for derogations applicable in situations which may affect public security are Articles 30 EC, 39 EC, 46 EC, 58 EC, 64 EC, 296 EC, and 297 EC, which deal with exceptional and clearly defined cases.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da so edini členi, v katerih Pogodba določa odstopanja, ki se lahko uporabijo v primerih glede javne varnosti, členi 30, 39, 46, 58, 64, 296 in 297 ES, ki se nana�ajo na izjemne in jasno določene primere.
It cannot be inferred from those articles that the Treaty contains an inherent general exception excluding all measures taken for reasons of public security from the scope of Community law.
Iz teh členov se ne more sklepati, da Pogodba vsebuje splo�no odstopanje, ki izključuje vse ukrepe, ki so sprejeti zaradi javne varnosti iz okvira prava Skupnosti.
To recognise the existence of such an exception, regardless of the specific requirements laid down by the Treaty, might impair the binding nature of Community law and its
Prepoznavanje obstoja take izjeme kljub posebnim zahtevam, ki jih določa Pogodba, lahko ogrozi zavezujočo
uniform application. 26 Thus, public security may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society.
sklicuje nanjo le, če obstaja pravo in dovolj resno ogrožanje temeljnih interesov družbe.
Moreover, those derogations must not be misapplied so as, in fact, to serve purely economic ends. 27
Nadalje se ta odstopanja ne smejo napačno uporabiti, tako da bi dejansko služila le uresničitvi gospodarskih ciljev. 27
As a derogation, this article must be interpreted strictly.
Kot odstopanje se mora ta člen razlagati ozko.
The Court has also held that it is for the Member State which seeks to rely on those exceptions to furnish evidence that the exemptions in question do not go beyond the limits of such cases and that they are necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security. 28
Sodi�če je ugotovilo tudi, da mora država članica, ki se sklicuje na te izjeme, predložiti dokaze, da zadevne izjeme ne presegajo mej teh primerov in da so potrebne za za�čito bistvenih interesov njene varnosti. 28
In its defence, Italy relies in particular on Article 296 EC.
V obrambi se Italija sklicuje zlasti na člen 296 ES.
The purpose of Article 296 EC is to coordinate as well as balance relations and tensions between the protection of competition in the common market and the protection of Member States’ essential interests of security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material
Namen člena 296 ES je usmerjati in uravnove�ati odnose in napetosti med varstvom konkurence na skupnem trgu ter varstvom bistvenih interesov države
28 — Case C-414/97 Commission v Spain [1999] ECR I-5585, paragraph 22.
28 – Glej sodbo z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-414/97, Recueil, str.
See also Case C-367/89 Richardt and ‘Les Accessoires Scientifiques’ [1991] ECR I-4621, paragraphs 20 and 21 and the caselaw cited therein.
I-5585, točka 22). Glej tudi sodbo z dne 4. oktobra 1991 v zadevi Richardt in „Les Accessoires Scientifiques“ (C-367/89, Recueil, str.
It follows that that derogation, as for example the derogation in Article 30 EC, cannot be considered an automatic and/or blanket exemption which Member States may invoke regardless of the particular circumstances of a given situation.
Izhaja, da se to odstopanje, kot na primer odstopanje v členu 30 ES, ne more �teti za avtomatično in/ali pav�alno izjemo, ki jo lahko navaja država članica kljub določenim okoli�činam danega položaja.
Article 296 EC should be applied by Member States on a case-by-case basis and in a case such as this one each individual procurement contract must be assessed.
Člen 226 ES bi morale države članice uporabljati glede na posamičen primer in v primeru, kot je ta, je treba presoditi vsako posamično oddajo naročila posebej.
Under Article 296 EC the measures, which are applied by a Member State and which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material, must be necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security.
V skladu s členom 296 ES morajo biti ukrepi, ki jih uporablja država članica in so povezani s proizvodnjo ali trgovino orožja, streliva in voja�kih sredstev, potrebni za za�čito bistvenih interesov njene varnosti.
In addition, Article 296 EC is subject to the condition that ‘such measures shall not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes’ (emphasis
Nadalje je člen 296 ES pogojevan s tem, da „tak�ni ukrepi ne smejo negativno vplivati na pogoje konkurence na skupnem
COMMISSION v ITALY added).
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI trgu glede proizvodov, ki niso izrecno predvideni v voja�ke namene“.
Moreover, Article 296 EC is applicable only to products that are enumerated on the list included in a Council decision of 15 April 1958.
Nadalje se člen 296 ES uporablja le za proizvode s seznama, ki se nahaja v sklepu Svet z dne 15. aprila 1958.
29 means for example that the supply of a helicopter to the military corps which is intended for civil purposes must comply with the public procurement rules.
29 dobava helikopterja za voja�ka telesa, ki je namenjen za civilne namene, v skladu s pravili o oddaji javnih naročil.
A fortiori, helicopters supplied to certain civil departments of a Member State which could only hypothetically be used, as Italy claims, for military purposes too, inevitably have to comply with those rules.
A fortiori, morajo biti helikopterji, ki so dobavljeni za določene civilne oddelke države članice in se lahko le hipotetično uporabijo, kot trdi Italija, tudi v voja�ke namene, nujno v skladu s temi pravili.
In my view, where the application of Article 296 EC by a Member State adversely affects competition in the common market, the Member State in question must prove that the products are intended for specifically military purposes.
Menim, da mora država članica, če uporabi člen 296 ES in to negativno vpliva na pogoje konkurence na skupnem trgu, dokazati, da so ti proizvodi izrecno predvideni v voja�ke namene.
30To my mind, that in itself already precludes dual-use products. 31
30 Menim, da to izključuje blago z dvojno rabo. 31
In the present case, Italy has never contended that all the helicopters in question were purchased for specifically military purposes.
V tem primeru Italija ni nikoli trdila, da so bili vsi zadevni helikopterji kupljeni izrecno v voja�ke namene.
Rather, the Italian Government essentially submits that the helicopters in question can also hypothetically be used for military purposes but are, however, used at the same time for civil purposes.
Italijanska vlada bolj zatrjuje, da se lahko zadevni helikopterji hipotetično uporabljajo tudi v voja�ke namene, vendar se sočasno uporabljajo tudi v civilne namene.
It is thus clear from the file before the Court that the helicopters in question were not intended to be used for specifically military purposes.
Naj sklenem, da je iz spisa, ki ga obravnava Sodi�če, razvidno, da zadevni helikopterji niso bili predvideni v voja�ke namene.
As a result, Italy cannot rely in its defence on Article 296(1)(b) EC.
Iz tega izhaja, da se Italija v obrambi ne more sklicevati na člen 296(1)(b) ES.
The nature of the products on the 1958 list and the explicit reference in Article 296 EC to ‘specifically military purposes’ confirms that only the trade in equipment which is designed, developed and produced for specifically military purposes can be exempted from Community rules on competition on the basis of Article 296(1)(b) EC.
Narava proizvodov s seznama 1958 in izrecno sklicevanje na člen 296 ES, na „izrecno voja�ke namene“, potrjuje, da se le trgovina opreme, ki je oblikovana, razvita in proizvedena izrecno v voja�ke namene, lahko izključi iz pravil Skupnosti glede konkurence na podlagi člena 296(1)(b) ES.
32The requirement that products be destined for specifically military purposes
32 Zahteva, da se lahko proizvod izrecno predvidi v voja�ke namene, pomeni, na primer, da mora biti
29 — The Council adopted the list of products to which this Article applies on 15 April 1958.
29 – Svet je seznam proizvodov, za katere se ta člen uporablja, sprejel 15. aprila 1958.
The list itself has never been officially published or amended, but is in the public domain.
Seznam ni bil nikoli uradno objavljen ali spremenjen, vendar je na razpolago javnosti.
See Written Question E-1324/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council: Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty, OJ 2001C 364 E, p. 85.
Glej pisno vpra�anje E-1324/01, ki ga je Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) postavil Svetu: člen 296(1)(b) Pogodbe ES (UL C 364 E, 20. 12. 2001, str. 85).
30 — In Case C-414/97 Commission v Spain, cited in footnote 28, at paragraph 22 the Court stated that ‘it is for the Member State which seeks to rely on those exceptions [that is to say inter alia Articles 30 EC and 296 EC] to furnish evidence that the exemptions in question do not go beyond the limits of such cases’.
30 – V opombi 28 navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Španiji, točka 22, je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da „mora država članica, ki se sklicuje na te izjeme [torej med drugim člena 30 ES and 296 ES] predložiti dokaz, da zadevne oprostitve ne presegajo mej teh primerov“.
31 — A contrario sensu, however, I should note that products which appear on the list and are not intended for specifically military purposes do fall under the procurement rules.
31 – Vendar lahko a contrario sensu poudarim, da se za proizvode, ki so na seznamu in niso predvideni v voja�ke namene, uporabljajo določbe glede oddaje javnih naročil.
Italy has not attempted to demonstrate that its concerns with regard to confidentiality could not have been adequately resolved pursuant to the procedures laid down in the directive, in particular the restricted proced- ure mentioned in Article 1(e) thereof.
Italija ni posku�ala prikazati, da se njena skrb glede zaupnosti ni mogla re�iti v skladu s postopki, določenimi v Direktivi, zlasti v skladu z omejenim postopkom, določenim v členu 1(e) te direktive. Namesto tega Italija
scope of application of the rules on public procurement by systematically awarding contracts directly to Agusta.
za velik del dobave helikopterjev za italijansko centralno upravo ni uporabila pravil o oddaji javnih naročil s tem, da je sistematično naročila neposredno oddala družbi Agusta.
This practice is clearly disproportionate by reference to the expressed concern of protecting confidentiality. 33
Tak�no ravnanje očitno ni sorazmerno s sklicevanjem na izraženo skrb za varstvo zaupnosti. 33
Furthermore, as regards Article 2(1)(b) of the Directive, the fact that the helicopters in question serve for exclusively or primarily civil purposes renders invalid Italy’s argument on the necessity to protect the confidentiality of purchases of the helicopters in the case at hand and thus the derogation under that provision is not applicable to the purchases of helicopters which are subject to these proceedings.
Nadalje glede na člen 2(1)(b) Direktive dejstvo, da zadevni helikopterji služijo izrecno ali prvenstveno v civilne namene, izniči trditev Italije glede potrebe po za�čiti zaupnosti nakupa helikopterjev v tem primeru in tako se izjema iz tega člena ne uporablja za nakup helikopterjev, ki so predmet teh postopkov.
The Commission contends that the two exceptions mentioned above are not pertinent in the present case.
Komisija trdi, da zgoraj navedeni izjemi v tem primeru nista upo�tevni.
As regards additional deliveries, the Commission submits that, in addition, the general three-year rule provided for in Article 6(3)(e) of the Directive applied and, in any event, since the previous deliveries were unlawful the additional deliveries were by definition also unlawful.
Glede dodatnih dobav Komisija trdi, da se je uporabilo splo�no pravilo treh let, ki ga določa 6(3)(e) Direktive, v vsakem primeru pa glede na to, da predhodne dobave niso bile zakonite, tudi dodatne dobave že po definiciji niso bile zakonite.
(a) Main arguments of the parties
Homogenost/interoperabilnost flote b) Presoja a) Bistvene trditve strank
Italy submits that owing to the technical specificity of helicopters and to the fact that
Italija trdi, da je zaradi tehničnih lastnosti helikopterjev in zato, ker je zadevna dobava
33 — I agree with the Commission that it is appropriate to recall in this respect the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Case C-349/97 Spain v Commission [2003] ECR I-3851, points 249 to 257, where he concluded that requirements of confidentiality could not be invoked in order to exempt a public contract from competition.
33 – Strinjam se s Komisijo, da je glede tega primerno spomniti na sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Légerja v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-349/97, Recueil, str. I 3851, točke od 249 do 257), v katerih je sklenil, da se za oprostitev javnega naročila iz konkurence ne moremo sklicevati na potrebe po zaupnosti.
In that case the applicable provision was Directive 77/62, which was repealed by Directive 93/36.
V tem primeru se je uporabljala Direktiva 77/62, ki jo je razveljavila Direktiva 93/36.
It suffices to state that Italy failed to explain and to prove to a sufficient extent what led it to consider that only Agusta helicopters had the required characteristics to justify the purchases under Article 6(3)(c) and (e) of the Directive.
Zado�ča, da ugotovimo, da Italija ni dovolj pojasnila niti dokazala, kaj jo je vodilo pri tem, da je menila, da so imeli le helikopterji družbe Agusta zahtevane lastnosti za utemeljitev nakupa v skladu s členom 6(3)(c) in (e) Direktive.
IV — Costs alleged by Italy that other Member States producing helicopters follow the same proced- ure is not pertinent for the purposes of the present proceedings.
IV – Stroški s Komisijo in menim, da je dejstvo, ki ga je zatrjevala Italija, da ostale države članice, ki proizvajajo helikopterje, sledijo enakemu postopku, ni upo�tevno za ta postopek.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice the Italian Government as the unsuccessful party should be ordered to bear the costs.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča se Italijanski republiki kot neuspeli
It follows that in the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/36 and, earlier, under Directives 77/62, 80/767, and 88/295.
Iz tega izhaja, da glede na zgornje ugotovitve, predlagam, naj Sodi�če ugotovi, da Italijanska republika ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive 93/36 in prej v direktivah 77/62, 80/767 in 88/295.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court:
Glede na zgoraj povedano, predlagam, naj Sodi�če:
(1) declare that, since the Italian Government and, in particular, the Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, Economics and Finance, for Agricultural and Forestry Policy, and for Infrastructure and Transport, and the Department of Civil Protection of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, have adopted a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to the firm Agusta contracts for the purchase of helicopters manufactured by Agusta and Agusta Bell to meet the requirements of the military corps
1. ugotovi, da vlada Italijanske republike, posebej ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, ministrstvo za obrambo, ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance, ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in gozdarstvo, ministrstvo za promet in zveze ter oddelek za civilno za�čito predsednika Sveta ministrov s tem, da nenehno izvajajo že dalj časa trajajočo prakso, na podlagi katere javna naročila za nakup helikopterjev proizvajalcev Agusta in Agusta Bell neposredno oddajajo družbi Agusta za zadostitev potreb
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 15 September 2005,
V zadevi C-337/05, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 15. septembra 2005,
2008 — CASE C-337/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-337/05
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 17 April 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 2007, gives the following
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 17. aprila 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 10. julija 2007 izreka naslednjo
By its application, the Commission of the European Communities is asking the Court to declare that by adopting a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to Agusta SpA (‘Agusta’) contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to meet the requirements of several
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj ugotovi, da Italijanska republika, s tem da izvaja dolgoletno prakso neposrednega oddajanja naročil družbi Agusta S pA (v nadaljevanju: družba Agusta) za nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell za potrebe več voja�kih in civilnih korpusov italijanske države brez
COMMISSION v ITALY military and civilian corps of the Italian State, without any competitive tendering procedure and, in particular, without complying with the procedures provided for by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI kakr�nega koli razpisnega postopka in zlasti s kr�enjem postopkov, ki so določeni z Direktivo Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 199, str.
1), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 328, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997 (UL L 328, str.
1; ‘Directive 93/36’), and previously, by Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1997 L 13, p.
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 93/36), in prej z Direktivo Sveta 77/62/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1976 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL 1977, L 13, str.
1), as amended and supplemented by Council Directives 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980 (OJ 1980 L 215, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena in dopolnjena z direktivama Sveta 80/767/EGS z dne 22. julija 1980 (UL L 215, str. 1) in 88/295/EGS z dne 22. marca 1988 (UL L 127, str.
1; ‘Directive 77/62’), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 77/62), ni izpolnila obveznosti iz teh direktiv.
By its action, the Commission claims a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations under Directive 93/36 and, as regards the period prior to the date on which that directive entered into force, under Directive 77/62.
Komisija s svojo tožbo želi, da se ugotovi neizpolnitev obveznosti na podlagi Direktive 93/36 ter v zvezi z obdobjem, preden je ta začela veljati, na podlagi Direktive 77/62.
In view of the similarity of the provisions of those directives and in the interests of clarity, reference will be made here to Directive 93/36 alone.
Zaradi podobnosti določb teh direktiv in zaradi jasnosti se je treba sklicevati samo na Direktivo 93/36.
The 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/36 is in the following terms:
Dvanajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 93/36 določa:
‘… the negotiated procedure should be considered to be exceptional and therefore applicable only in limited cases’.
„[…] postopek s pogajanji [je] izjemno dovoljen in se ga zato lahko uporablja le v določenih primerih.“
Article 1 of Directive 93/36 states that, for the purposes of that directive:
Člen 1 Direktive 93/36 določa, da za namene te direktive:
‘(a) “public supply contracts” are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing involving the purchase, lease rental or hire purchase, with or without option to buy, of products between a supplier (a natural or legal person) and one of the contracting authorities defined in (b) below.
„a) ‚javna naročila blaga‘ pomenijo v pisni obliki sklenjene pogodbe s plačilom, ki vključujejo nakup, zakupni najem ali zakup, z ali brez možnosti nakupa, blaga med ponudnikom (fizično ali pravno osebo) in enim od naročnikov, ki so opredeljene v (b) spodaj.
(b) “contracting authorities” shall be the State, regional or local authorities, bodies governed by public law, associations formed by one or several of such authorities or bodies governed by public law.
Dobava tak�nega blaga lahko dodatno vključuje tudi gradnje na sami lokaciji in izvajanje instalacijskih gradenj; b) ‚naročniki‘ lahko pomenijo državo, regionalne in lokalne oblasti, osebe javnega prava, združenja, ki jih oblikuje ena ali več tak�nih oblasti ali oseb javnega prava;
(f) “negotiated procedures” are those national procedures whereby contracting authorities consult suppliers of their choice and negotiate the terms of the contract with one or more of them.’
[…] d) ‚odprti postopki‘ pomenijo tiste nacionalne postopke, pri katerih lahko vsi dobavitelji, ki jih to zanima, predložijo ponudbe; e) ‚omejeni postopki‘ pomenijo tiste nacionalne postopke, pri katerih lahko ponudbe predložijo le dobavitelji, katere so povabili naročniki; f) ‚postopki s pogajanji‘ pomenijo tiste nacionalne postopke, pri katerih se naročniki posvetujejo z dobavitelji o izbiri in se z enim ali več kot enim od njih pogajajo o pogojih naročila.“
Under Article 2(1)(b), that directive is not to apply to:
V skladu s členom 2(1)(b) se navedena direktiva ne uporablja:
‘supply contracts which are declared secret or the execution of which must be accompanied by special security measures in accordance with the laws, regulations or administrative provisions in force in the Member States concerned or when the protection of the basic interests of the Member State’s security so requires.’
„za naročila blaga, ki se razglasijo za tajne ali katerih izvr�evanje morajo spremljati posebni varnostni ukrepi v skladu z zakoni in drugimi predpisi, ki veljajo v zadevnih državah članicah, ali kadar to zahteva za�čita temeljnih interesov varnosti države članice.“
Article 3 of the same directive provides:
Člen 3 navedene direktive določa:
‘Without prejudice to Articles 2, 4 and 5(1), this Directive shall apply to all products to which Article 1(a) relates, including those covered by contracts awarded by contracting authorities in the field of defence, except for the products to which Article [296](1)(b) [EC] applies.’
„Brez poseganja v člene 2, 4 in 5(1) mora ta direktiva veljati za vse blago, na katero se nana�a člen 1(a), vključno s tistim, ki ga zajemajo naročila, ki jih naročniki oddajo na področju obrambe, izjema je le blago, za katero se uporablja člen 296(1)(b) [ES] Pogodbe.“
Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 93/36 is worded as follows:
Člen 5(1)(a) Direktive 93/36 vsebuje naslednje besedilo:
(i) the contracting authorities referred to in Article 1(b), including contracts awarded by the contracting authorities listed in Annex I in the field of
„a) Naslovi II, III in IV ter člena 6 in 7 se uporabljajo za javna naročila blaga, ki jih oddajo: i) naročniki iz člena 1(b), vključno z naročili, ki jih oddajo naročniki iz Priloge I za področje obrambe, če se nana�ajo na izdelke, ki jih ne zajema Priloga II, ko
2008 — CASE C-337/05 defence in so far as products not covered by Annex II are concerned, where the estimated value net of value-added tax (VAT) is not less than the equivalent in [euros] of 200 000 special drawing rights (SDRs);
2008 – ZADEVA C-337/05 ocenjena vrednost brez DDV ni manj�a kakor enakovreden znesek v [eurih] za 200.000 posebnih pravic črpanja (SDR); ii) naročniki iz Priloge I in katerih ocenjena vrednost brez DDV ni manj�a kakor enakovreden znesek v [eurih] za 130.000 posebnih pravic črpanja (SDR); za naročnike s področja obrambe velja to le za naročila, ki vključujejo izdelke iz Priloge II.“
Article 6(1) to (3) of the same directive provides:
Člen 6, od (1) do (3), iste direktive določa: