natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly it is with regard to the legislation in force on 15 December 2003, the date on which the two month period prescribed in the reasoned opinion of 15 October 2003 expired, that it must be decided whether the Italian Republic committed the infringement alleged in this complaint, given that at that date neither the circular referred to in paragraph 39 of this judgment nor the national legislation cited in paragraph 40 had been adopted.
Zato je o morebitni neizpolnitvi obveznosti, zatrjevani v okviru tega tožbenega razloga, treba odločiti z vidika ureditve, ki je veljala 15. decembra 2003, na dan izteka dvomesečnega roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju z dne 15. oktobra 2003, saj je bilo ugotovljeno, da na ta datum tako okrožnica, navedena v točki 39 te sodbe, kot nacionalna ureditev, navedena v točki 40 te sodbe, nista bili sprejeti.
‘Public works contracts’ as defined in Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37 means contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a contractor and a contracting
V zvezi s pojmom „javna naročila gradenj“ v smislu člena 1(a) Direktive 93/37 je treba ugotoviti, da ta ureja plačila pisno sklenjene pogodbe med izvajalcem in naročnikom,
2008 — CASE C-412/04 authority as defined in Article 1(b), which have as their object either the execution, or both the execution and design, of works related to one of the activities referred to in Annex II to Directive 93/37 or a work defined in Article 1(c), or the execution, by whatever means, of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by the contracting authority.
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04 kakor je opredeljen v točki (b) tega člena, katerih predmet je izvedba, oboje – izvedba in projektiranje gradenj, povezanih z eno od dejavnosti iz priloge II k tej direktivi –, gradnja, opredeljena v točki (c) navedenega člena 1 spodaj, ali izvedba neke gradnje, ne glede na način, ki ustreza zahtevam naročnika.
Furthermore, it follows from the 16th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/50, read in conjunction with Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37, that a contract may be regarded as a public works contract only if its object corresponds to the definition given in the preceding paragraph and that works that are ancillary rather than the object of the contract do not justify treating the contract as a public works contract.
Poleg tega iz �estnajste uvodne izjave Direktive 92/50 v povezavi s členom 1(a) Direktive 93/37 izhaja, da se lahko pogodba �teje za javno naročilo gradenj le takrat, kadar njen predmet ustreza opredelitvi iz prej�nje točke, in da gradnje, ki so naključne in niso predmet pogodbe, ne omogočajo upravičene obravnave tega naročila kot javnega naročila gradenj.
It is, moreover, clear from the caselaw of the Court that, where a contract contains both elements relating to a public works contract and elements relating to another type of contract, it is the main purpose of the contract that determines which Community directive on public procurement is to be applied in principle (see Case C-220/05 Auroux and Others [2007] ECR I-385, paragraph 37).
Poleg tega iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je, ko pogodba hkrati vsebuje elemente, ki se nana�ajo na javno naročilo gradenj, in elemente, ki se nana�ajo na neko drugo vrsto naročila, glavni predmet pogodbe tisto, kar določa, katera direktiva Skupnosti o javnih naročilih se bo načeloma uporabila (glej sodbo z dne 18. januarja 2007 v zadevi Auroux in drugi, C-220/05, ZOdl., str. I-385, točka 37).
In particular, therefore, the scope of Directive 93/37 is linked to the main purpose of the contract, which must be determined in an objective examination of the entire transaction to which the contract relates.
Tako je področje uporabe Direktive 93/37 vezano zlasti na glavni predmet pogodbe, ki mora biti določen v okviru objektivnega preizkusa celotnega naročila, na katerega se nana�a ta pogodba.
The assessment must be made in the light of the essential obligations which predominate and which, as such, characterise the transaction, as opposed to those which
Do te določitve mora priti glede na bistvene obveznosti, ki prevladajo in ki kot take določajo to naročilo, ne pa glede na obveznosti, ki so le nebistvene ali dopolnilne in
COMMISSION v ITALY are only ancillary or supplementary in nature and are required by the very purpose of the contract; the value of the various matters covered by the contract is, in that regard, just one criterion among others to be taken into account for the purposes of the assessment.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI so določene s samim predmetom pogodbe, pri čemer je zadevna vrednost posameznih predstavljenih storitev le eno izmed meril, ki jih je treba upo�tevati za navedeno določitev.
It may be inferred from the foregoing that, as the Advocate General has indicated in points 38 and 74 of his Opinion, the value of the works cannot, without infringing the requirements of Directive 93/37, constitute the sole criterion capable of resulting in the application of Law No 109/1994 to a mixed contract, where those works are only ancillary.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega lahko sklepamo, kot je generalni pravobranilec navedel v točkah 38 in 74 sklepnih predlogov, da vrednost gradnje ne more biti v vseh okoli�činah izključno merilo za uporabo zakona �t. 109/1994 za me�ano naročilo, takrat ko so te gradnje le dodatne, razen s kr�itvijo zahtev Direktive 93/37.
The rule laid down in Article 2(1) of Law No 109/1994 also fails to comply with the requirements in Directives 92/50 and 93/36, in so far as its application may result in certain mixed contracts falling outside the procedures provided for in those directives, namely those contracts where the works, although ancillary, represent more than 50% of the total value and the total value is below the threshold set by Directive 93/37 even though it reaches the thresholds adopted in Directives 92/50 and 93/36.
Pravilo, določeno v členu 2(1) zakona �t. 109/1994, ima za posledico tudi kr�itev zahtev direktiv 92/50 in 93/36, če bi njegova uporaba lahko vodila do izmika določenih me�anih naročil postopkom, določenim s tema direktivama, in sicer tistih naročil, v katerih vrednost gradnje, tudi dodatne, predstavlja več kot 50 % skupne cene, pri čemer ostaja pod pragom, določenim z Direktivo 93/37, čeprav dosega prage, določene z direktivama 92/50 in 93/36.
Therefore, it must be held that, by adopting Article 2(1) of Law No 109/1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je sprejela določbe iz člena 2(1) zakona �t. 109/1994, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv 92/50, 93/36 in 93/37.
The second complaint
Drugi očitek
The second complaint relates to the direct award of works or a work to the holder of a building permit or an approved estate plan if their value is below the threshold for the application of Directive 93/37.
Drugi očitek se nana�a na neposredno dodelitev gradnje in del imetniku gradbenega dovoljenja ali potrjenega načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, če je vrednost te gradnje ali del nižja od pragov za uporabo Direktive 93/37.
Second, the Commission submits that, in order to determine whether that threshold has been reached, the total value of the works and/or work covered by the agree-
Komisija po drugi strani meni, da je treba za ugotovitev, ali je prag dosežen, vračunati celotno vrednost gradnje in/ali del, predvidenih s pogodbo, sklenjeno med posa-
COMMISSION v ITALY ment concluded between the private person and the authority must be calculated, as they must be regarded as separate lots in one single contract.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI meznikom in upravo, pri čemer morajo biti te gradnje in/ali ta dela upo�tevani kot različni sklopi enega in istega naročila.
The fact that, under national law, the tender procedures are applicable only if the agreement concerns works whose estimated value, taken individually, exceeds the threshold for the application of the relevant Community rules therefore amounts to a failure to comply with the requirements of Directive 93/37, through the exclusion from the scope of the national provisions transposing those requirements contracts the total value of which is higher than the threshold because the amounts corresponding to each of the matters involved in those contracts are insufficient.
Dejstvo, da se v skladu z nacionalno ureditvijo postopki javnega razpisa uporabljajo le, če se ta pogodba nana�a na dela, katerih ocenjena vrednost, gledano individualno, je vi�ja od praga za uporabo veljavnih pravil Skupnosti na tem področju, bi torej kr�ilo zahteve Direktive 93/37, saj bi bila s področja uporabe nacionalnih določb, ki so prenesle te zahteve, izključena naročila, katerih celotna vrednost presega navedeni prag, in sicer zaradi nezadostnosti zneskov posameznih storitev, ki jih ta naročila vsebujejo.
According to the Italian Republic, as regards infrastructure works with a value less than the threshold for application of the Community rules and which are executed by the holder of a building permit or approved estate plan, it is unnecessary at the transposition stage to refer specifically to the rules of the Treaty on advertising and competition and the relevant caselaw of the Court interpreting them.
Italijanska republika glede, prvič, komunalnih ureditvenih del v vrednosti, ki je manj�a od praga, določenega z veljavnimi pravili Skupnosti, in ki jih izvede imetnik gradbenega dovoljenja ali potrjenega načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, meni, da se v fazi prenosa ni treba posebej sklicevati na pravila Pogodbe s področja ogla�evanja in konkurence, tako kot se na to navezuje razlaga sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
Second, the Italian Republic draws attention to the specific features of the town planning sector in which estate owners take the place of local authorities and to the characteristics of the development agreements concluded between local authorities and estate owners.
Drugič, Italijanska republika poudarja posebnosti urbanističnega sektorja, v katerem gradbeni investitorji nadome�čajo lokalne skupnosti in značilnosti parcelnih pogodb, sklenjenih med temi skupnostmi in gradbenimi investitorji.
Such agreements simply require the local authority concerned to issue building permits, the estate owner being responsible for undertaking the infrastructure works in the area concerned on the basis of proposals that the local authority reserves the right to approve.
Te pogodbe naj bi vsebovale le obveznost, da zadevne lokalne skupnosti izdajo gradbena dovoljenja, pri čemer ostaja gradbeni investitor odgovoren, da na zadevnem območju opravi ureditvena dela na podlagi projektov, ki jih mora potrditi navedena skupnost.
The fact that the same estate owner has been entrusted with the execution of various works which by their very nature differ from each other does not mean that there
Dejstvo, da je bila izvedba več po naravi raznovrstnih del zaupana istemu gradbenemu investitorju, ne more pomeniti – le zato, ker je navedeni gradbeni investitor
2008 — CASE C-412/04 is an obligation to aggregate the works for the purpose of applying Directive 93/37 simply because he is the owner of the land concerned.
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04 lastnik zadevnih zemlji�č – obveznosti sprejetja teh del zaradi uporabe Direktive 93/37.
The Italian Republic submits, in that connection, that in Case C-399/98 Ordine degli Architetti and Others [2001] ECR I-5409 the Court gave a ruling on a situation different from the one in the present case, in so far as it concerned the achievement of works which were clearly a single unit.
Italijanska republika glede tega poudarja, da se je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 12. julija 2001 Ordine degli Architetti in drugi (C-399/98, Recueil, str. I-5409) opredelilo do položaja, ki je bil drugačen od tega v obravnavanem postopku, saj je �lo za izvedbo dela, ki je bilo očitno enotne narave.
According to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, public contracts with a value below the threshold laid down by the relevant directives are not covered by the principle of transparency.
Po mnenju Kraljevine Nizozemske za javna naročila, katerih vrednost je nižja od pragov, določenih z direktivami na tem področju, načelo preglednosti ne velja.
It adds that the directives themselves expressly provide for a number of derogations, as the Community legislature chose in those situations to give priority to interests other than transparency.
Poleg tega dodaja, da same direktive izrecno določajo nekatere izjeme, ker se je normodajalec Skupnosti odločil, da v teh primerih da prednost drugim interesom, in ne preglednosti.
The Republic of Finland submits that while contracts the value of which is lower than the thresholds set by those directives are thereby excluded from the scope of the directives, they are subject as a matter of law to the provisions of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods and services and freedom of establishment.
Republika Finska trdi, da za naročila, katerih vrednost je nižja od pragov, določenih z navedenimi direktivami, čeprav so zaradi tega izključena iz njihovega področja uporabe, upravičeno veljajo določbe Pogodbe v zvezi s prostim pretokom blaga in storitev in svobodo ustanavljanja.
Accordingly, national law should not impose specific requirements relating to advertising or inviting competing bids with respect to those contracts.
Zato nacionalna zakonodaja v zvezi z navedenimi naročili ne bi smela uvajati posebne obveznosti ogla�evanja ali javnega razpisa.
First of all, the Community legislature expressly made a policy choice to exclude contracts under a certain threshold from the advertising regime which it introduced and therefore did not impose any specific obligation with respect to them.
Najprej je treba ugotoviti, da se je normodajalec Skupnosti izrecno in načelno odločil pustiti naročila, katerih vrednost je manj�a od določenega praga, zunaj ureditve ogla�evanja, ki jo je uvedel, tako da posledično glede njih ni določil nobene obveznosti.
Furthermore, where it is established that such a contract is of certain crossborder interest, the award, in the absence of any transparency, of that contract to an undertaking located in the same Member State as the contracting authority amounts to a difference in treatment to the detriment of undertakings which might be interested in the contract but which are located in other Member States.
Poleg tega, če se ugotovi, da tako naročilo pomeni določen čezmejni interes, pomeni popolnoma netransparentna oddaja tega naročila podjetju, ki se nahaja v državi članici naročnika, različno obravnavanje v �kodo podjetij, ki bi jih lahko navedeno naročilo zanimalo, vendar se nahajajo v drugi državi članici.
Unless it is justified by objective circumstances, such a difference in treatment, which, by excluding all undertakings located in another Member State, operates mainly to the detriment of the latter undertakings, amounts to indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality, prohibited under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (see, to that effect, as regards Directive 92/50, Case C-507/03 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-9777, paragraphs 30 and 31 and the caselaw cited).
Razen če je upravičeno z objektivnimi okoli�činami, tako različno obravnavanje, ki je z izključitvijo vseh podjetij iz drugih držav članic predvsem njim v �kodo, pomeni posredno diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, ki je na podlagi členov 43 ES in 49 ES prepovedana (glej v tem smislu, glede direktive 92/50, sodbo z dne 13. novembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski, C-507/03, ZOdl., str. I-9777 točki 30 in 31 ter navedena sodna praksa).
Since, as the Advocate General has observed, in point 56 of his Opinion, under Article 249 EC directives are binding as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State to which they are addressed and since the Community legislature excluded certain contracts from the scope of Directive 93/37, in particular by laying down thresholds, the Member States are not required to adopt, in the legislation transposing that directive, provisions recalling the obligation to comply with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, which is applicable only in the circumstances set out in paragraph 66 of this judgment.
Ker so, prvič, kot je to ugotovil generalni pravobranilec v točki 56 sklepnih predlogov, v skladu s členom 249 ES direktive za vsako državo članico, na katero so naslovljene, zavezujoče glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, in ker, drugič, je normodajalec Skupnosti, zlasti z določitvijo pragov, s področja uporabe Direktive 93/37 izključil določena naročila, države članice niso dolžne za prenos te direktive v svojo ureditev sprejeti določb, ki se sklicujejo na obveznost spo�tovanja členov 43 ES in 49 ES, ki se uporablja le pod pogoji, navedenimi v prej�nji točki te sodbe.
The fact that the Italian legislature did not adopt such provisions with respect to public contracts for infrastructure works executed by the holder of a building permit or an approved estate plan the value of which is below the threshold for application of Directive 93/37, for cases where the existence of a certain crossborder interest is established, does not call into question the applicability of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC to those contracts.
Neravnanje italijanskega zakonodajalca v zvezi s tem, da gre za javna naročila, ki se nana�ajo na komunalna ureditvena dela v vrednosti, ki je manj�a od praga, določenega z veljavnimi pravili Direktive 93/37, in ki jih izvede imetnik gradbenega dovoljenja ali potrjenega načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, če je ugotovljen obstoj določenega čezmejnega interesa, pa ne izpodbija dejstva, da se člena 43 ES in 49 ES uporabljata za navedena naročila.
Therefore, the second complaint, in so far as it is based on the infringement of fundamental rules of the Treaty, must be dismissed.
Zato je treba drugi očitek, ker temelji na kr�itvi temeljnih pravil Pogodbe, zavrniti.
Second, as regards the scope of Article 2(5) of Law No 109/1994 in the light of the requirements of Directive 93/37, according to settled caselaw the fact that a provision of national law allowing direct execution by the holder of a building permit or an approved estate plan of infrastructure works which offset the whole or part of the contribution payable in respect of the permit forms part of a set of urban development regulations which are of a special nature and pursue a specific aim that is separate from Directive 93/37 is not sufficient to exclude the direct execution of works from the scope of the directive when the elements needed to bring it within the scope of the directive are present (see Ordine degli Architetti and Others, paragraph 66).
Glede, drugič, področja uporabe člena 2(5) zakona �t. 109/1994, v zvezi z določbami Direktive 93/37, je treba najprej poudariti, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča okoli�čina – da določba nacionalnega prava predvideva neposredno izvedbo komunalnih ureditvenih del, ki jih izvede imetnik gradbenega dovoljenja ali potrjenega načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, ki se v celoti ali deloma odbijejo od prispevka, dolgovanega iz naslova dodelitve dovoljenja – del pravil na področju urbanizma, ki ima svoje značilnosti in sledi posebnemu cilju, drugačnemu od Direktive 93/37, ne zado�ča za izključitev neposredne izvedbe področja uporabe slednje direktive, kadar so zahtevani elementi, ki so z njo zajeti, združeni (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ordine degli Architetti in drugi, točka 66).
Furthermore, it is clear from Article 6(3) of Directive 93/37 that, where a work is subdivided into several lots, each one the subject of a contract, the value of each lot must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the amount referred to in Article 6(1) which determine whether or not the directive is applicable to all the lots.
Poleg tega iz člena 6(3) Direktive 93/37 izhaja, da če je gradnja nadalje razdeljena na več sklopov in je vsak sklop predmet naročila, je treba upo�tevati vrednost vsakega sklopa pri izračunu zneskov iz odstavka 1 tega člena, na podlagi česar se določi, ali je treba to direktivo uporabiti za vse sklope ali ne.
Therefore, as the Advocate General has stated in point 88 of his Opinion, if the agreement concluded between a private person who is the owner of development land and the municipal authority satisfies the criteria for the definition of a ‘public works contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37, which are set out in paragraph 45 of this judgment, the estimated value which must in principle be taken into account in order to ascertain whether the threshold set by the directive is attained and whether, therefore, the award of the contract must comply with the rules on advertising laid down therein, may be calculated solely by reference to the total value of the various works, by adding together the value of the various lots.
Zato kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 88 sklepnih predlogov, kadar pogodba, sklenjena med posameznikom, lastnikom zemlji�č, ki se delijo na sklope, in komunalno upravo, ustreza merilom opredelitve pojma „javna naročila gradenj“ v smislu člena 1(a) Direktive 93/37, navedenim v točki 45 te sodbe, je treba ocenjeno vrednost – ki je načeloma upo�tevana pri ugotovitvi, ali je bil dosežen prag, določen s to direktivo, in ali mora zato dodelitev naročila upo�tevati pravila ogla�evanja, ki jih ta določa – upo�tevati le glede celotne vrednosti gradenj in del, in sicer s se�tevkom vrednosti posameznih sklopov.
By providing for an award procedure which complies with the requirements of Directive 93/37 only where the estimated value of each of those lots, taken individually, exceeds the threshold for application of the directive, Italian law infringes the directive.
Italijanska zakonodaja s tem, da je postopek oddaje v skladu z določbami Direktive 93/37 določila le v primeru, ko ocenjena vrednost posameznega sklopa, ki se obravnava individualno, presega prag, določen za njeno uporabo, ni v skladu s to direktivo.
It is clear from the foregoing that Article 2(5) of Law No 109/1994 fails to comply with the requirements of Directive 93/37 by improperly limiting use of the procedures established by the directive.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da člen 2(5) zakona �t. 109/1994 kr�i zahteve Direktive 93/37, s ker neupravičeno omejuje uporabo z njo uvedenih postopkov.
The third complaint
Tretji očitek
The third complaint concerns the award of the design, supervision and inspection of works in the context of public service contracts the value of which is below the threshold for the application of the relevant Community provisions.
Tretji očitek se nana�a na dodelitev nalog projektiranja, vodenja in nadziranja gradnje pri javnih naročilih storitev, katerih vrednost je nižja od pragov za uporabo določb Skupnosti na tem področju.
The Commission criticises those provisions, which allow the use of a method of awarding the public service contracts concerned that excludes any form of advertising, on the ground that, although those contracts do not fall within the scope of Directive 92/50, they remain subject to the rules of the Treaty on the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment as well as to the principles of nondiscrimination, equal treatment, proportionality and transparency.
Komisija kritizira te določbe, ki omogočajo uporabo načina oddaje javnih naročil za zadevne storitve z izključitvijo vsakega ogla�evanja, in sicer ker za ta naročila, čeprav ne spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive 92/50, �e vedno veljajo pravila Pogodbe glede svobode opravljanja storitev in svobode ustanavljanja ter načela prepovedi diskriminacije, enakega obravnavanja ter sorazmernosti in preglednosti.
The Italian Republic submits that any rule of secondary legislation must be interpreted on the basis of the general principles of the Treaty and that any interpretation which deviates from them would be unlawful.
Italijanska republika trdi, da je treba vsa pravila sekundarne zakonodaje razlagati na podlagi splo�nih načel Pogodbe in da je vsaka razlaga, ki bi se oddaljila od teh načel, nezakonita.
In any event, any unlawfulness can only arise from an incorrect application of the rule to a particular case.
Morebitna nezakonitost bi se v vsakem primeru izkazala za nepravilno uporabo v posameznem primeru.