natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It cannot be inferred from those articles that the Treaty contains an inherent
Iz teh členov ni mogoče sklepati, da Pogodba vsebuje splo�no odstopanje, ki izključuje vse ukrepe, ki
COMMISSION v ITALY general exception excluding all measures taken for reasons of public security from the scope of Community law.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI so sprejeti zaradi javne varnosti, iz področja uporabe prava Skupnosti.
In that regard, 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 exceptional cases (see, to that effect, Case C-414/97 Commission v Spain [1999] ECR I-5585, paragraph 22).
V zvezi s tem mora država članica, ki se sklicuje na te izjeme, predložiti dokaze, da zadevne izjeme ne presegajo meja teh izjemnih primerov (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-414/97, Recueil, str. I-5585, točka 22).
In this case, the Italian Republic contends that the purchases of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters meet the legitimate requirements of national interest foreseen in Articles 296 EC and 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36, on the ground that those helicopters are dual-use items, that is to say, they may serve as well for civilian as for military purposes.
V tej zadevi Italijanska republika trdi, da nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell izpolnjuje upravičene zahteve v nacionalnem interesu, ki jih določata člena 296 ES in 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36, ker so zadevni helikopterji „blago z dvojno rabo“, kar pomeni, da se lahko uporabljajo tako v civilne kot v voja�ke namene.
First, it is important to point out that, under Article 296(1)(b) EC, any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security and which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials, provided, however, that such measures do not alter the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.
Prvič, treba je poudariti, da lahko na podlagi člena 296(1)(b) ES vsaka država članica v zvezi s proizvodnjo orožja, streliva in voja�kih sredstev ali trgovino z njimi sprejme ukrepe, za katere meni, da so potrebni za za�čito bistvenih interesov njene varnosti; tak�ni ukrepi ne smejo negativno vplivati na pogoje konkurence na skupnem trgu glede proizvodov, ki niso izrecno predvideni v voja�ke namene.
It is clear from the wording of that provision that the products in question must be intended for specifically military purposes.
Iz besedila navedene določbe izhaja, da bi morali biti zadevni proizvodi izrecno predvideni v voja�ke namene.
It follows that the purchase of equipment, the use of which for military purposes is hardly certain, must necessarily comply with the rules governing the award of public contracts.
Iz tega sledi, da je treba pri nakupu opreme, katere uporaba v voja�ke namene ni gotova, nujno spo�tovati pravila za oddajo javnih naročil.
It is established that the helicopters in question, as the Italian Republic admits, are certainly for civilian use and possibly for military use.
Dejstvo je, da so zadevni helikopterji, kot priznava Italijanska republika, zagotovo predvideni za civilni namen in morebiti za voja�kega.
Consequently, Article 296(1)(b) EC, to which Article 3 of Directive 93/36 refers, cannot properly be invoked by the Italian Republic to justify recourse to the negotiated procedure for the purchase of those helicopters.
Zato se Italijanska republika ne more uspe�no sklicevati na člen 296(1)(b) ES, ki ga navaja člen 3 Direktive 93/36, da bi utemeljila uporabo postopka s pogajanji za nakup navedenih helikopterjev.
Secondly, that Member State relies on the confidential nature of the information which is obtained to put the helicopters manufactured by Agusta into production to justify the award of the contracts to that company following the negotiated procedure.
Drugič, navedena država članica navaja zaupnost podatkov, ki se pridobijo za proizvodnjo helikopterjev, za katero skrbi družba Agusta, da bi utemeljila dodelitev naročil tej družbi po postopku s pogajanji.
In that regard, the Italian Republic cites Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36.
V zvezi s tem Italijanska republika navaja člen 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36.
However, the Italian Republic has not stated the reasons for which it submits that the confidentiality of the information communicated for the production of the helicopters manufactured by Agusta would be less well guaranteed were such production entrusted to other companies, be they established in Italy or in other Member States.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da Italijanska republika ni navedla razlogov, zaradi katerih je menila, da naj bi bila zaupnost podatkov, ki se jih posreduje za proizvodnjo helikopterjev, za katero skrbi družba Agusta, manj zagotovljena, če bi bila ta proizvodnja zaupana drugim družbam, ne glede na to, ali so ustanovljene v Italiji ali v drugih državah članicah.
In that regard, the requirement to impose an obligation of confidentiality in no way prevents the use of a competitive tendering procedure for the award of a contract.
Glede tega nujnost, da se predvidi obveznost zaupnosti, nikakor ne ovira uporabe razpisnega postopka za dodelitev naročila.
Therefore, resort to Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36 to justify the purchase of the helicopters in question by the negotiated procedure seems to be disproportionate as regards the objective of preventing the disclosure of sensitive information relating to their production.
Zato se zdi, da je uporaba člena 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36 za utemeljitev nakupa zadevnih helikopterjev po postopku s pogajanji nesorazmerna glede na cilj, ki je preprečiti �irjenje občutljivih informacij o njihovi proizvodnji.
The Italian Republic has not shown that such an objective was unattainable within a competitive tendering procedure such as that specified by the same directive.
Italijanska republika dejansko ni dokazala, da tega cilja ne bi bilo mogoče doseči v okviru razpisnega postopka, kot je predviden z isto direktivo.
Consequently, Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36 cannot properly be invoked by the Italian Republic to justify the use of the negotiated procedure for the purchase of those helicopters.
Zato se Italijanska republika ne more uspe�no sklicevati na člen 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36, da bi utemeljila uporabo postopka s pogajanji za nakup navedenih helikopterjev.
— The requirement for homogeneity of the fleet of helicopters
– Zahteve homogenosti flote helikopterjev
To justify the use of the negotiated procedure, the Italian Republic also invokes Article 6(3)(c) and (e) of Directive 93/36.
Italijanska republika se je v utemeljitev uporabe postopka s pogajanji sklicevala tudi na člen 6(3)(c) in (e) Direktive.
It maintains, first, that, having regard to their technical specificity, the manufacture of the helicopters in question could be entrusted only to Agusta and, second, that it was necessary to ensure the interoperability of its fleet of helicopters, in order, particularly, to reduce the logistic, operational and pilot-training costs.
Trdi, prvič, da je bilo mogoče glede na tehnične posebnosti izdelavo zadevnih helikopterjev dodeliti le družbi Agusta in, drugič, da je bilo nujno zagotoviti interoperabilnost njene flote helikopterjev, da bi zlasti znižala logistične in operativne stro�ke ter stro�ke usposabljanja pilotov.
As is clear, in particular, from the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/36, the negotiated procedure is exceptional in nature and may be applied only in cases which are set out in an exhaustive list.
Kot zlasti izhaja iz dvanajste uvodne izjave Direktive 93/36 je postopek s pogajanji izjema in se lahko uporablja le v taksativno na�tetih primerih.
To that end, Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36 exhaustively and expressly lists the only exceptions for which recourse to the negotiated procedure is allowed (see, to that effect, as regards Directive 77/62, Case C-71/92 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-5923, paragraph 10; as regards Directive 93/36, see Teckal, paragraph 43, and Case C-84/03 Commission v Spain, cited above, paragraph 47).
V ta namen je treba poudariti, da člen 6(2) in (3) iste direktive taksativno in izrecno na�tevata izjeme, zaradi katerih je uporaba postopka s pogajanji dovoljena (glej v tem smislu glede Direktive 77/62 sodbo z dne 17. novembra 1993 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-71/92, Recueil, str. I-5923, točka 10, in glede Direktive 93/36 glej tudi zgoraj navedeni sodbi Teckal, točka 43, ter Komisija proti Španiji, točka 47).
To prevent Directive 93/36 being deprived of its effectiveness, the Member States cannot, therefore, provide for the use of the negotiated procedure in cases not provided for by that directive, or add new conditions to the cases expressly provided for by the directive in question which make that procedure easier to use (see, to that effect, Case C-84/03 Commission v Spain, paragraph 48).
Zato države članice ne bi smele niti določati primerov uporabe postopka s pogajanji, ki niso določeni s to direktivo, niti razvrstiti primerov, ki jih izrecno ureja zadevna direktiva, po novih merilih, katerih posledica bi bila lažja uporaba tega postopka, saj bi se sicer s tem zadevni direktivi odvzel polni učinek (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, točka 48).
In addition, it must be recalled that the burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the derogation from those rules lies on the person seeking to rely on those circumstances (see Case 199/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 1039, paragraph 14, and Commission v Greece, cited above, paragraph 33).
Poleg tega je treba spomniti, da mora tisti, ki se želi sklicevati na izjemo, dokazati, da dejansko obstajajo posebne okoli�čine, ki upravičujejo izjemo (glej sodbo z dne 10. marca 1987 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, 199/85, Recueil, str. 1039, točka 14, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 33).
In this case, the Italian Republic has not discharged the burden of proof as regards the reason for which only helicopters produced by Agusta would be endowed with the requisite technical specificities.
V tej zadevi je treba ugotoviti, da Italijanska republika ni zadosti pravno dokazala, zakaj naj bi imeli le helikopterji, ki jih izdela Agusta, zahtevane tehnične lastnosti.
In addition, that Member State has confined itself to pointing out the advantages of the interoperability of the helicopters used by its various corps.
Poleg tega je ta država članica poudarjala zgolj prednosti interoperabilnosti helikopterjev, ki jih uporabljajo različni korpusi.
It has not however demonstrated in what respect a change of supplier would have constrained it to acquire material manufactured according to a different technique likely to result in incompatibility or disproportionate technical difficulties in operation and maintenance.
Vendar ni dokazala, zakaj bi jo zamenjava dobavitelja prisilila k nakupu materiala, katerega proizvodnja bi bila drugačna, tako da bi to povzročilo nezdružljivost ali nesorazmerne tehnične težave pri uporabi ali vzdrževanju.
Having regard to all the foregoing, it must be declared that, by adopting a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to Agusta contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps of the Italian State, without any competitive tendering procedure, and, in particular, without complying with the procedures provided for by Directive 93/36 and, previously, by Directive 77/62, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
Glede na vse navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da Italijanska republika s tem, da izvaja dolgoletno prakso neposrednega oddajanja naročil družbi Agusta za nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell za potrebe več voja�kih in civilnih korpusov italijanske države brez kakr�nega koli razpisnega postopka in zlasti s kr�enjem postopkov, ki so določeni z Direktivo 93/36 in prej z Direktivo 77/62, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz teh direktiv.
Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful in its submissions, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Italijanski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Declares that, by adopting a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to Agusta SpA contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps, 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, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and previously, by Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended and supplemented by Council Directives 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980 and 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;
Italijanska republika s tem, da izvaja dolgoletno prakso neposrednega oddajanja naročil družbi Agusta za nakup helikopterjev znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell za potrebe več vojaških in civilnih korpusov italijanske države brez kakršnega koli razpisnega postopka in zlasti s kršenjem postopkov, ki so določeni z Direktivo Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/E z dne 13. oktobra 1997, in prej z Direktivo Sveta 77/62/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1976 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga, kot je bila spremenjena in dopolnjena z direktivama Sveta 80/767/EGS z dne 22. julija 1980 in 88/295/EGS z dne 22. marca 1988, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz teh direktiv.
Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Italijanski republiki se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Case C-503/07 P
Zadeva C-503/07 P
(Appeal — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Federal Republic of Germany — Allocation of allowances — Period 2008-2012 — Conditions — Individual concern — Inadmissibility — Right to a full hearing before a court — Right to a fair hearing)
„Pritožba – Direktive 2003/87/CE – Sistem za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov – Celovito preprečevanje in nadzorovanje onesnaževanja – Zvezna republika Nemčija – Dodelitev pravic – Obdobje od 2008 do 2012 – Pogoji – Posamična zadevnost – Nedopustnost – Pravica do izjave – Pravica do pravičnega postopka“
Appeals — Interest in bringing proceedings
Pritožba – Pravni interes
SUMMARY — CASE C-503/07 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-503/07 P
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them
Ničnostna tožba – Fizične ali pravne osebe – Akti, ki jih neposredno in posamično zadevajo
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87, Arts 9 and 11)
(člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES; Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2003/87, člena 9 in 11)
The Court may declare an appeal to be inadmissible when an event subsequent to the judgment of the Court of First Instance has removed its prejudicial effect as regards the appellant.
Sodi�če lahko razglasi pritožbo za nedopustno takrat, ko pritožba zaradi dejstva, ki je nastalo po sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje, postane ne�kodljiva za pritožnika.
For an applicant to have an interest in bringing proceedings the appeal must be likely, if successful, to procure an advantage to the party bringing it.
Obstoj pravnega interesa pritožnika namreč predpostavlja, da ima lahko stranka, ki je vložila tožbo, zaradi tožbe koristi.
With regard to the application of Directive 2003/87 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Directive 96/61, a Commission decision addressed to a Member State and rejecting in part a National Allocation Plan (NAP) for such allowances for the second allocation period is of general application, since it applies to objectively determined situations and entails legal effects for categories of persons regarded generally and in the abstract.
pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov v Skupnosti in o spremembi Direktive 96/61, da ima, prvič, odločba Komisije, ki je naslovljena na državo članico in s katero se je delno zavrnilo nacionalni načrt razdelitve (NNR) tak�nih pravic za drugo obdobje dodelitve, splo�en obseg, ker se nana�a na objektivno določene položaje in ima pravne učinke za skupine oseb, ki so določene splo�no in abstraktno.
Also, the fact that that decision resulted in the prohibition of the maintenance in force of the allocation guarantee which could have been claimed by certain operators under a national law concerning allocation of allowances for the first allocation period is not capable of conferring on that decision the character of a conglomeration of individual decisions.
Drugič, dejstvo, da je imela navedena odločba za posledico prepoved ohraniti v veljavi jamstvo za dodelitev, ki bi ga lahko določeni upravljavci zahtevali na podlagi nacionalnega zakona o razdelitvi pravic za prvo obdobje dodelitve, tej odločbi ne podeljuje značaja svežnja posamičnih odločb.
In that regard, the fact that the NAP notified by the Member State to the Commission must contain a list of the installations covered by the emission trading scheme and a statement of the allowances which that State intends to grant to those installations, does not make it possible to conclude that, by that decision, the Commission ruled on the individual applications.
S tem da mora NNR, ki ga je država članica predložila Komisiji, vsebovati seznam naprav, ki jih pokriva sistem za trgovanje s pravicami, in navedbo pravic, ki jih ta država namerava dodeliti navedenim napravam, ni mogoče sklepati, da se je Komisija z navedeno odločbo izrekla o posamičnih zahtevah.
In any case, whilst they cannot apply for the annulment of the contested decision,
Možnost, da se bolj ali manj natančno opredeli �tevilo ali celo identiteta pravnih subjektov, za katere se ukrep uporablja, nikakor ne pomeni, da jih je treba obravnavati, kot da jih ta ukrep zadeva posamično v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, dokler ni sporno, da se ta uporaba izvaja na podlagi pravno ali dejansko objektivne situacije, ki je določena v zadevnem aktu.
The possibility of determining more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom a measure applies, by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, as long as it is established that that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question.
Vsekakor zadevni upravljavci glede na to, da niso mogli predlagati razglasitve ničnosti sporne odločbe, ohranijo
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND v COMMISSION national courts, adjudicating in accordance with Article 234 EC.
SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS DEUTSCHLAND PROTI KOMISIJI sklicevanja na nezakonitost te odločbe pred nacionalnimi sodi�či, ki odločajo ob upo�tevanju člena 234 ES.
the operators concerned retain the possibility of challenging the national measures taken in application of the contested decision and, in that context, of relying on its illegality before the
možnost izpodbijanja nacionalnih ukrepov, sprejetih na podlagi navedene odločbe, in v teh okoli�činah možnost
(see paras 70-73, 78)
(Glej točke 70, 73 in 78.)
2008 — CASE C-503/07 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-503/07 P
8 April 2008 *
SKLEP SODIŠČA (�esti senat) z dne 8. aprila 2008 *
Fels-Werke GmbH, established in Goslar (Germany),
Fels-Werke GmbH, s sedežem v Goslarju (Nemčija),
Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG, established in Erwitte (Germany), applicants at first instance, * Language of the case: German.
Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co. KG, s sedežem v Erwittu (Nemčija), tožeče stranke na prvi stopnji, * Jezik postopka: nem�čina.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the appellant’s request that the case be dealt with under an expedited procedure pursuant to Article 62a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following
Mazák, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi zahteve tožeče stranke, da naj se obravnavana zadeva predloži v hitri postopek na podlagi člena 62a Poslovnika Sodi�ča, po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca, sprejema naslednji
European Communities of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke and Others v Commission (‘the order under appeal’) dismissing as inadmissible its application for annulment in part of Commission Decision K(2006) 5609 of 29 November 2006 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period 2008-2012 (‘the contested decision’).
2008 – ZADEVA C-503/07 P z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Fels-Werke in drugi proti Komisiji (T-28/07, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani sklep), s katerim je bila tožba za razglasitev ničnosti dela Odločbe Komisije K(2006) 5609 z dne 29. novembra 2006 o nacionalnem načrtu razdelitve pravic do emisije toplogrednih plinov, ki ga je predložila Zvezna republika Nemčija za obdobje med letoma 2008 in 2012 (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba), zavržena kot nedopustna.
Article 1 of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p.
S členom 1 Direktive 2003/87/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 13. oktobra 2003 o vzpostavitvi sistema za trgovanje s pravicami do emisije toplogrednih plinov v Skupnosti in o spremembi Direktive Sveta 96/61/ES (UL L 275, str.
32) establishes, with effect from 1 January 2005, such a scheme in order to promote reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, in particular of carbon dioxide, in a cost-effective and economically efficient manner.
32) z začetkom veljavnosti 1. januarja 2005 se vzpostavlja tak sistem, da bi pospe�il stro�kovno in gospodarsko učinkovito zmanj�anje emisij toplogrednih plinov, zlasti ogljikovega dioksida.
According to Article 2 of Directive 2003/87, the directive applies to emissions resulting from the activities listed in Annex I, which include installations for the manufacture of glass.
V skladu s členom 2 Direktive 2003/87 se Direktiva nana�a na emisije iz dejavnosti iz Priloge I, med katerimi so naprave za proizvodnjo stekla.
Article 11 of Directive 2003/87 provides for a first period of allocation of allowances from 2005 to 2007 (‘first allocation period’), then for a second period of allocation of allowances from 2008 to 2012 (‘second allocation period’).
V členu 11 Direktive 2003/87 je predvideno prvo obdobje dodelitve pravic od leta 2005 do leta 2007 (v nadaljevanju: prvo obdobje dodelitve), nato drugo obdobje dodelitve pravic od leta 2008 do leta 2012 (v nadaljevanju: drugo obdobje dodelitve).
The conditions and procedures pursuant to which the competent national authorities allocate allowances, on the basis of a national allocation plan (‘NAP’), to the operators of installations during those two allocation periods are set out in Articles 9 to 11 of Directive 2003/87.
Pogoji in postopki, pod katerimi pristojni nacionalni organi na podlagi nacionalnega načrta razdelitve (v nadaljevanju: NNR) dodelijo pravice upravljavcem naprav v teh dveh obdobjih razdelitve, so opredeljeni v členih 9 in 11 Direktive 2003/87.
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Directive 2003/87 states:
V členu 9(1), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 2003/87 je določeno: