natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission submits that the coefficient for duration of the infringement should be fixed at 1 in the present proceedings.
Komisija navaja, da bi bilo treba koeficient za trajanje kr�itve v obravnavanem postopku določiti na 1.
As can be seen from the Commission’s pleadings, that coefficient was calculated by reference, inter alia, to the date when the Commission decided to initiate the present proceedings, that is 12 October 2005.
Kot je mogoče razbrati iz vlog Komisije, je bil ta koeficient izračunan med drugim ob upo�tevanju datuma, ko se je Komisija odločila začeti obravnavani postopek, to je 12. oktobra 2005. Menim, da predlog Komisije v zvezi s trajanjem ni primeren. Poleg dejstva, da Komisija dejansko ni začela obravnavanega postopka do 7. februarja 2006, je Sodi�če v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-177/04, navedlo, da je treba trajanje kr�itve na podlagi člena 228 ES presoditi glede na čas,
I consider in the light of the circumstances of the case that the imposition of a penalty payment is a suitable means to induce or persuade Portugal to alter its conduct and to comply with its obligations pursuant to Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665.
Ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin primera menim, da je naložitev denarne kazni primerno sredstvo, da se Portugalsko spodbudi ali prepriča, naj spremeni svoje ravnanje in izpolni obveznosti iz čle nov 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direktive 89/665.
In my view, there is sufficient evidence in the present proceedings to suggest that there is a real danger that the infringement in question will persist unless a penalty payment is imposed on Portugal.
Menim, da je v zadevnem postopku zadosti dokazov za ugotovitev, da obstaja resnična nevarnost, da se bo zadevna kr�itev nadaljevala, razen če se Portugalski naloži denarna kazen.
In that regard, at the oral hearing on 5 July 2007 it was evident that the Portuguese Republic had not taken the necessary action to comply with the judgment in Case C-275/03, despite its repeated earlier statements that such action was imminent.
Na ustni obravnavi 5. julija 2007 je bilo namreč očitno, da Portugalska republika ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev sodbe v zadevi C-275/03, kljub temu da je pred tem ponovno navedla, da so ti ukrepi že skoraj sprejeti.
24 — See paragraph 81.
25 — V opombi 20 navedena sodba Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 92.
In those circumstances, I consider that a coefficient of 2 appears appropriate to take account of the duration of the infringement.
V teh okoli�činah menim, da koeficient 2 primerno upo�teva trajanja kr�itve.
As regards the seriousness of the infringement, I do not consider that the Commission’s proposal of a coefficient of 11, on a scale of 1 to 20, for seriousness is correct.
Glede resnosti kr�itve menim, da predlog Komisije, naj se na lestvici od 1 do 20 uporabi koeficient 11, ni pravilen. Menim, da je koeficient ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin obravnavanega primera in prej�nje sodne prakse Sodi�ča očitno pretiran.
In the present case, compliance with the judgment in Case C-275/03 only required the adoption by Portugal of measures of transposition into national law of Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665 and, in particular, the repeal of Decree-Law No 48051.
V obravnavanem primeru je izvr�itev sodbe v zadevi C-275/03 pomenila samo zahtevo, naj Portugalska sprejme ukrepe za prenos členov 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direktive 89/665 v nacionalno pravo in naj zlasti razveljavi uredbozakon �t. 48051.
With regard to that caselaw, the Portuguese Government in my view correctly pointed out that a lower coefficient for seriousness in cases involving for example a threat to public health, damage to the environment and the depletion of fishing stocks was applied by the Court.
Jasno je, da je bila kr�itev Portugalske, ker ni dokončno sprejela nujnih zakonodajnih ukrepov za izvr�itev sodbe v zadevi C-275/03, ki je bila izda na 14. oktobra 2004, dolgotrajna.
28I consider that the coefficient of 4 suggested by the Portuguese Government is thus more appropriate in the present case.
Od izdaje sodbe v zadevi C-275/03 do ustne obravnave v obravnavani zadevi so pretekla skoraj tri leta.27
In my view, the date of the Court’s assessment of the facts is an unidentifiable date which is not known by the parties.
Menim, da datuma, na kateri je Sodi�če presodilo dejstva, ni mogoče opredeliti in ga stranki ne poznata.
I consider therefore that for the purposes of imposing a penalty payment pursuant to Article 228 EC, the duration of the infringement must be assessed by reference to the date of the hearing in a case, or in the event that a hearing is not held, the date of the close of the written procedure.
Zato menim, da je za namen naložitve denarne kazni na podlagi člena 228 ES trajanje kr�itve treba oceniti glede na datum javne obravnave v zadevi, če pa obravnave ni, pa glede na datum konca pisnega postopka.
27 — See by analogy Case C-177/04 Commission v France, cited in footnote 23, paragraphs 73 and 74.
28 — Glede tega je Portugalska navedla, da je v sodbi Komisija proti Grčiji (navedena v opombi 20) Komisija predlagala koeficient 6 za resnost zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, zaradi katere je bilo ogroženo javno zdravje, pri čemer v tej zadevi niso bila opravljena dejanja za izvr�itev prej�nje sodbe.
In that case the Court considered that a coefficient of 3 for duration should be applied where a failure to adopt measures of transposition into national law had persisted for nearly four years.
Poleg tega je bil v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (C-304/02, navedena v opombi 18), ki se je nana�ala na skupno ribi�ko politiko, za resnost predlagan koeficient 10.
28 — In that regard, Portugal noted that in Commission v Greece (cited in footnote 20), the Commission proposed a coefficient of 6 for seriousness concerning a failure to fulfil obligations which threatened public health and where no action had been taken to execute the previous judgment.
27 — Po analogiji glej sodbo, navedeno v opombi 23, Komisija proti Franciji, točki 73 in 74.
In addition, in Case C-304/02 Commission v France (cited in footnote 18), which concerned the common fisheries policy, a coefficient of 10 for seriousness was proposed.
V tem primeru je Sodi�če menilo, da je treba koeficient 3 za trajanje uporabiti takrat, ko ukrepi za prenos v nacionalno pravo niso bili sprejeti skoraj �tiri leta.
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL distorted. 30 Moreover, contrary to Portugal’s arguments, 31I consider that the possibility
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI ljene konkurence na notranjem trgu.30 Dalje menim – v nasprotju s trditvami Portu-
While the infringement of Directive 89/665 would appear to be partial, in that the present proceedings and the proceedings in Case C-275/03 relate to Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of that directive rather than the directive in its entirety, the coefficient of 4 for seriousness is warranted given, in my view, the importance of the provisions in question which provide for the establishment of measures for the award of damages to persons injured by an infringement of the public procurement rules. 29 for private actors to seek review of the decisions of contracting authorities and, where they have been injured by an infringement of the rules on public procurement, to obtain damages, is crucial to the proper functioning of those rules.
Ker je kr�itev Direktive 89/665 delna, saj se obravnavani postopek in postopek v zadevi C-275/03 bolj nana�ata na člena 1(1) in 2(1)(c) te direktive, ne pa toliko nanjo v celoti, je koeficient 4 za resnost upravičen glede na to, da so po mojem mnenju zadevne določbe, ki nalagajo sprejetje ukrepov za povrnitev �kode osebam, ki so bile o�kodovane zaradi kr�itve pravil o javnih naročilih, pomembne.29 galske31 –, da je možnost subjekta zasebnega prava zahtevati revizijo odločitev, ki jih sprejmejo naročniki – javnopravni subjekti –, in da prejme od�kodnino, če je bil zaradi kr�itve pravil o javnih naročilih o�kodovan, ključna za učinkovitost teh določb.
The availability of such procedures not only safeguards the interests of the parties in question, but also guarantees the full effectiveness of the Community’s public procurement policy.
Dostopnost takega postopka ne le varuje interese zadevnih strank, temveč tudi zagotavlja polni učinek politike Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil.
The failure by Portugal to repeal Decree-Law No 48051 32would appear to render
Ker Portugalska ni razveljavila uredbezakona �t. 48051,32se zdi, da bodo subjekti
In coming to this conclusion I would stress that I do not agree with the submissions of Portugal which would tend to suggest that the European Community’s policy on public procurement is not of any great importance.
V utemeljitev tega stali�ča bi poudaril, da se ne strinjam z navedbami Portugalske, iz katerih bi bilo mogoče razbrati, da politika Evropske skupnosti o javnih naročilih nima večjega pomena.
Public procurement policy is, in my view, pivotal in ensuring that competition in the internal market is not judicial actions in this field by private parties more difficult and indeed costly.
Menim, da je politika javnih naročil ključna za zagotovitev neizkriv- zasebnega prava na tem področju težje uveljavljali pravno varstvo na sodi�čih in da bo to varstvo dražje.
This situation could, in my opinion, undermine the incentives of private parties to bring such actions and thus impair the full effectiveness of the Community’s public procurement policy.
Menim, da bi se zaradi tega lahko zmanj�al interes subjektov zasebnega prava za vlaganje takih pravnih sredstev in tako onemogočil polni učinek politike Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil.
30 — Indeed the sheer size of the public procurement sector, which would appear to represent 16% of the Community’s GDP and 13.2% of Portugal’s GDP, can not be overlooked.
30 — Dejansko že samega obsega sektorja javnih naročil, ki pomeni 16 % BDP Skupnosti in 13,2 % BDP Portugalske, ni mogoče spregledati.
31 — See point 31 above.
31 — Glej zgoraj točko 31.
29 — See by contrast Case C-177/04 Commission v France (cited in footnote 23) where the Court considered that the infringement of Community law due to the partial non-transposition of a directive was not particularly serious and thus applied a coefficient for seriousness of 1.
29 — Glej zadevo Komisija proti Franciji (C-177/04, navedena v opombi 23), v kateri je Sodi�če, nasprotno, menilo, da kr�itev prava Skupnosti zaradi delnega neprenosa direktive ni bila posebno resna, in je zato uporabilo koeficient za resnost 1.
In that case, the Court found that France had failed to comply with the judgment in Case C-52/00 Commission v France ([2002] ECR I-3827) as regards the transposition of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p.
V tem primeru je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da Francija ni izvr�ila sodbe z dne 25. aprila 2002 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (C-52/00, Recueil, str.
29), and had thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC as it continued to regard the supplier of a defective product as liable on the same basis as the producer where the producer cannot be identified, even though the supplier had informed the injured person within a reasonable time of the identity of the person who supplied him with the product.
I-3827), ker namreč ni prenesla člena 3(3) Direktive Sveta 85/374/EGS z dne 25. julija 1985 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi z odgovornostjo za proizvode z napako (UL L 210, str.
32 — Thereby making the award of damages to persons injured by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or wilful misconduct on the part of the State or public entities.
29), in torej s tem, da je dobavitelja proizvoda z napako �e dalje obravnavala tako, da odgovarja enako kot proizvajalec, če zadnjega ni mogoče identificirati, čeprav je dobavitelj o�kodovanca v razumnem roku obvestil o tem, kdo mu je dobavil proizvod, ni izpolnila obveznosti na podlagi člena 228 ES.
OPINION OF MR MAZÁK — CASE C-70/06 amendment.
MAZÀKA – ZADEVA C-70/06 neposredno po prejetju obvestila o spremembi zakonodaje.
The arguments of the Portuguese Government based on paragraph 13.4 of the 2005 Communication should therefore also be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti tudi trditve portugalske vlade, ki temeljijo na točki 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005.
In the light of the foregoing, I consider that the penalty payment to be imposed in the present case should be derived by multiplication of the base amount of EUR 600 by the coefficients of 4.04 (ability to pay), 334 (seriousness of the infringement) and 2 (duration of the infringement) which leads to an amount of EUR 19 392 for each day of delay.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega menim, da bi bilo treba denarno kazen, ki jo je treba naložiti v obravnavanem primeru, izračunati na podlagi zmnožka osnovnega zneska 600 EUR in koeficientov 4,04 (plačilna sposobnost),334 (resnost kr�itve) in 2 (trajanje kr�itve), kar znese 19.392 EUR za vsak dan zamude.
As regards the possibility for the Court to impose a lump sum, I do not consider that such a sanction is warranted in the present proceedings despite the fact that the failure to transpose Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665 has persisted for almost three years since the judgment in Case C-275/03 was handed down and the public and private interests affected due to that failure are of some importance.
Glede možnosti, da Sodi�če naloži pav�alni znesek, menim, da v obravnavanem postopku taka sankcija ni upravičena, kljub temu da člena 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direk -tive 89/665 skoraj 3 leta po izdaji sodbe v zadevi C-275/03 nista bila prenesena in kljub temu da so javni in zasebni interesi, ki so bili prizadeti zaradi tega neprenosa, dokaj pomembni.
As regards, the frequency of the penalty payment, in a case such as the present one concerning compliance with a judgment of the Court which involves the simple adoption of a legislative amendment in order to transpose a part of a directive, a penalty payment imposed on a daily basis should be chosen. 34The arguments of the Portuguese Government based on paragraph 13.3 of the 2005 Communication should thus be rejected.
Glede pogostosti denarne kazni bi bilo treba v primeru, kot je obravnavani in ki se nana�a na izvr�itev sodbe Sodi�ča – pri čemer je vsebina izvr�itve zgolj sprememba zakona, ki je potrebna za prenos dela direktive –, izbrati možnost, da plačilo denarne kazni zapade dnevno.34Zato je treba zavrniti trditve portugalske vlade, ki temeljijo na točki 13.3 Obvestila iz leta 2005.
Moreover, I consider that there is no need to suspend the imposition of the penalty payment in the present case.
Dalje menim, da ni potrebe, da bi se v obravnavanem primeru naložitev denarne kazni odložila.
Moreover, the Court has considered that both sanctions have their own autonomous function. 36
Poleg tega je Sodi�če menilo, da ima vsaka od sankcij svojo avtonomno funkcijo.36
See point 37 above.
Glej zgoraj točko 37.
35 — See paragraphs 114 and 115 of Case C-304/02 Commission v France (cited in footnote 18).
35 — Glej sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, C-304/02, točki 114 in 115.
34 — See Case C-177/04 Commission v France, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 77.
34 — Glej v opombi 23 navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, C-177/04, točka 77.
36 — See Case C-304/02 Commission v France, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 84.
36 — Glej sodbo Komisija proti Franciji, C-304/02, točka 84.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court should:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘EC own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 19 392 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, from delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Case C-275/03 has been complied with in full;
— Portugalski republiki naloži, naj Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti na račun „lastna sredstva ES“ plača kazen 19.392 EUR za vsak dan zamude pri izvr�itvi ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev sodbe v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski, C-275/03, od dneva izdaje obravnavane sodbe do dneva njene popolne izvr�itve;
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
— Portugalski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov.
JUDGMENT OF 10. 1.
SODBA Z DNE 10. 1.
2008 — CASE C-70/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-70/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)10 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 10. januarja 2008*
ACTION under Article 228 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 February 2006,
V zadevi C-70/06, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 228 ES, vložene 7. februarja 2006,
* Language of the case: Portuguese.
* Jezik postopka: portugal�čina.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 July 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 October 2007, gives the following
Ferreira, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 5. julija 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 9. oktobra 2007 izreka naslednjo
Judgment
Sodbo
By its application the Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— declare that, by having failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, not published in the ECR, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;
— ugotovi, da Portugalska republika s tem, da ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev sodbe z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski republiki (C-275/03, neobjavljena v ZOdl.), ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 228(1) ES;
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 21 450 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Portugal is complied with;
— Portugalski republiki naloži, naj na račun „viri lastnih sredstev Evropskih skupnosti“ Komisiji plača kazen 21.450 EUR za vsak dan zamude pri izvr�itvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski od razglasitve te sodbe do njene izvr�itve, in,
The third, fourth and sixth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p.
V tretji, četrti in �esti uvodni izjavi Direktive Sveta 89/665/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o uporabi revizijskih postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za preskrbo in javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 395, str.
33) state the following:
33) je določeno:
‘Whereas the openingup of public procurement to Community competition necessitates a substantial increase in the guarantees of transparency and non-discrim-ination; whereas, for it to have tangible effects, effective and rapid remedies must be available in the case of infringements of Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law;
„ker je za odpiranje javnih naročil za konkurenco v Skupnosti treba znatno povečati jamstva za preglednost in prepoved razlikovanja; ker morajo biti za vidne učinke na voljo učinkovita in hitra pravna sredstva pri kr�itvah zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalnih predpisov za izvajanje te zakonodaje; ker v nekaterih državah članicah pomanjkanje učinkovitih pravnih sredstev ali neustreznost obstoječih odvrača pravne oziroma fizične osebe v Skupnosti od
Member State in which the contracting authority is established; whereas, therefore, the Member States concerned must remedy this situation;
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI oddajanja ponudb v državi članici, v kateri je naročnik registriran; ker morajo zato zadevne države članice to stanje popraviti; ker je treba zagotoviti, da v vseh državah članicah obstajajo ustrezni postopki, ki omogočajo, da se lahko nezakonito sprejete odločitve razveljavijo in da osebe, ki so bile o�kodovane zaradi kr�itev, dobijo od�kodnino“.
Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 states:
V členu 1(1) Direktive 89/665 je določeno:
‘The Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, as regards contract award procedures falling within the scope of Directives 71/305/EEC and 77/62/EEC, decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible … on the grounds that such decisions have infringed Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law.’
„Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se glede na postopke oddaje javnih naročil, ki sodijo na področje uporabe direktiv 71/305/EGS in 77/62/EGS, lahko odločitve, ki jih sprejmejo naročniki, učinkovito pregledajo, predvsem pa čim hitreje […] na podlagi tega, da se je s takimi odločitvami kr�ila zakonodaja Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalni predpisi, s katerimi se to pravo izvaja.“
Pursuant to Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665:
V členu 2(1) Direktive 89/665 je določeno:
‘The Member States shall ensure that the measures taken concerning the review procedures specified in Article 1 include provision for the powers to:
„Države članice zagotovijo, da sprejeti ukrepi v zvezi z revizijskimi postopki, določeni v členu 1, vključujejo določbo, ki omogoča, da:
(c) award damages to persons harmed by an infringement.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-70/06 c) se povrne �koda osebam, ki so bile o�kodovane zaradi kr�itve“.
Background to the dispute
Dejansko stanje
In point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Commission v Portugal the Court declared that:
Sodi�če je v točki 1 izreka zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski razsodilo:
‘By failing to repeal … Decree-Law No 48 051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons harmed by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of … Directive 89/665 …’
„Portugalska republika s tem, da ni razveljavila uredbezakona �t. 48 051 z dne 21. novembra 1967, ki za povrnitev �kode osebam, ki so bile o�kodovane zaradi kr�itve prava Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalnih predpisov, s katerimi je bilo to preneseno, določa, da je treba dokazati malomarnost ali naklep, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direktive Sveta 89/665 […]“
Pre-litigation procedure
Predhodni postopek
By letter of 4 November 2004 the Commission requested the Portuguese Republic to inform it of the measures which it had adopted or which it intended to adopt in order to amend its domestic law and, thus, to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 4. novembra 2004 od Portugalske republike zahtevala, naj jo obvesti o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela oziroma jih je nameravala sprejeti, da bi spremenila nacionalno pravo in izvr�ila zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Portugalski.
In its reply of 19 November 2004 the Portuguese Republic claimed, in essence, that a recent change of government had led to a delay in the adoption of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal.
Portugalska republika je v odgovoru z dne 19. novembra 2004 v bistvu zatrjevala, da je zaradi nedavne spremembe vlade nastala zamuda pri sprejemanju ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski.