natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
MAZÁKdelivered on 10 July 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAJANA MAZÁKA, predstavljeni 10. julija 2007 1
Directive 93/36 (‘Directive 93/36’ or ‘the Directive’) coordinates procedures for the award of public supply contracts and lays down requirements for the award of such contracts.
Direktiva 93/36 (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 93/36 oziroma Direktiva) usklajuje postopke oddaje javnih naročil blaga in določa zahteve za oddajo teh naročil.
Article 1 of Directive 93/36 provides:
Italija zatrjevani neizpolnitvi ugovarja, sklicujoč se na člen 296(1)(b) ES.
2 — Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
2 – Direktiva 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 199, str. 1).
3 — Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ 1977 L 13, p. 1.
3 – Direktiva 77/62/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1976 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL 1977, L 13, str. 1).
4 — Directive 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980 adapting and supplementing in respect of certain contracting authorities Directive 77/62/EEC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, OJ 1980 L 215, p. 1.
4 – Direktiva 80/767/EGS z dne 22. julija 1980, ki glede določenih naročnikov prilagaja in dopolnjuje Direktivo 77/62/EGS o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 215, str. 1).
5 — Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures on the award of public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC, OJ 1988 L 127, p. 1.
5 – Direktiva 88/295/EEC z dne 22. marca 1988 o spremembi Direktive 77/62/EGS o uskladitvi postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga in razveljavitvi določenih določb Direktive 80/767/EGS (UL L 127, str. 1).
‘(a) “public supply contracts” are contracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing involving the purchase, lease rental or hire purchase, with or without
„(a) ‚javna naročila blaga‘ pomenijo v pisni obliki sklenjene pogodbe s plačilom, ki vključujejo nakup, zakupni najem ali zakup, z ali brez možnosti nakupa,
The delivery of such products may in addition include siting and installation operations; 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’.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI 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“.
(d) “open procedures” are those national procedures whereby all interested suppliers may submit tenders;
(d) ‚odprti postopki‘ pomenijo tiste nacionalne postopke, pri katerih lahko vsi dobavitelji, ki jih to zanima, predložijo ponudbe; […]
Article 3 of the Directive provides that: ‘[w]ithout 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.’
Člen 3 Direktive določa, da mora „[b]rez poseganja v člene 2, 4 in 5(1) 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]“.
(e) “restricted procedures” are those national procedures whereby only those suppliers invited by the contracting authorities may submit tenders;
(e) ‚omejeni postopki‘ pomenijo tiste nacionalne postopke, pri katerih lahko ponudbe predložijo le dobavitelji, katere so povabili naročniki; […]
According to Article 6 of the Directive:
Člen 6 Direktive določa:
(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.’
(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), the Directive is not to apply to: ‘supply contracts which are
V skladu s členom 2(1)(b) Direktive se ta ne uporablja za „naročila blaga, ki se razglasijo za tajna ali katerih izvr�evanje morajo
In awarding public supply contracts the contracting authorities shall apply the proced- ures defined in Article 1(d), (e) and (f), in the cases set out below. …
Pri oddaji javnih naročil blaga morajo naročniki v spodaj določenih primerih uporabljati postopke, ki so opredeljeni v členu 1(d), (e) in (f) […]
The contracting authorities may award their supply contracts by negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice, in the following cases:
Naročniki lahko oddajo javna naročila blaga po postopku s pogajanjem, brez predhodne objave javnega razpisa v naslednjih primerih:
As regards other specific provisions, they will be referred to when I analyse the grounds of the alleged failure to fulfil obligations.
Ostale posebne določbe bom navedel, ko bom razčlenjeval temelj zatrjevane neizpolnitve.
(c) when, for technical or artistic reasons, or for reasons connected with protection of exclusive rights, the products supplied may be manufactured or delivered only by a particular supplier;
(c) ko zaradi tehničnih ali umetni�kih razlogov ali zaradi razlogov povezanih z varovanjem izključnih pravic naročeno blago lahko proizvede ali dobavi samo določen dobavitelj;
II — Facts, prelitigation procedure and forms of order sought
II – Dejansko stanje, predhodni postopek in predlogi strank
A — Facts
A – Dejansko stanje
(e) for additional [deliveries] by the original supplier which are intended either as a partial replacement of normal supplies or installations or as the extension of existing supplies or installations where a change of supplier would oblige the contracting authority to acquire material having different technical characteristics which would result in incompatibility or disproportionate technical difficulties in operation and maintenance.
(e) za dodatna [naročila] prvotnih dobaviteljev, ki so mi�ljena ali kot delno nadomestilo normalnih dobav oziroma instalacij ali kot raz�iritev obstoječih dobav ali instalacij, če bi zamenjava dobavitelja naročnika obvezala k naročilu blaga z drugačnimi tehničnimi specifikacijami, kar bi imelo za posledico nezdružljivost oziroma velike tehnične težave pri delovanju in vzdrževanju.
The length of such contracts as well as that of recurrent contracts may, as a general rule, not exceed three years.
Velja splo�no pravilo, da trajanje tak�nih naročil kot tudi dolžina ponavljajočih se naročil ne bi smela biti dalj�a od treh let.
In all other cases, the contracting authorities shall award their supply contracts by
Po prejemu pritožbe je Komisija začela postopek za ugotovitev kr�itve (�t.
On the basis of this ordinance, the Corpo Forestale dello Stato (State Forestry Corps) purchased on 28 October 2002 two Agusta Bell AB 412 EP helicopters for approximately EUR 18 millions, ‘by private negotiated contract, by derogation from the statutory provisions listed in Article 4 [of that
Corpo Forestale dello Stato (gozdna uprava) je na podlagi te odredbe 28. oktobra 2002 kupila helikopterja Agusta Bell AB 412 EP za približno 18 milijonov eurov, „na podlagi neposrednega sporazuma,
COMMISSION v ITALY ordinance]’, that is to say in particular from the national legislation transposing Community directives on coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI ob kr�itvi zakonskih določb iz člena 4 [navedene odredbe]“, to je �e zlasti ob kr�itvi nacionalne zakonodaje, ki je prenesla Direktivi Skupnosti o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga.
The Commission brought an action before the Court pursuant to Article 226 EC which resulted in a judgment in Case C-525/03 of 27 October 2005.
Komisija je pri Sodi�ču vložila tožbo na podlagi člena 226 ES, kar izhaja iz sodbe v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji z dne 27. oktobra 2005.
6 approximately EUR 33.6 million; and (iii) on 19 March 2003, a contract for a leasepurchase of four A 109 Power helicopters for approximately EUR 12.8 million.
6 pogodbo za �tiri helikopterje Agusta A 109 Power za približno 33,6 milijona eurov in (iii) 19. marca 2003 zakupno pogodbo za �tiri helikopterje A 109 Power helicopters za približno 12,8 milijona eurov. Komisija je navedla, da so v floti helikopterjev Corpo Nazionale dei Vigili del Fuoco v glavnem helikopterji Agusta ali Agusta Bell.
On the basis of the information received within the framework of the above procedure, the Commission noted that the specific infringement, forming the subjectmatter of that procedure was not an isolated incident but was symptomatic of a general practice of directly awarding contracts for the purchase of helicopters manufactured by Agusta and Agusta Bell to meet the requirements of various corps of the Italian State, without any tendering procedure.
Na podlagi informacij, prejetih v okviru tega postopka, je Komisija opozorila, da kr�itev, ki je predmet tega postopka, ni bila edini primer, ampak je bila taka splo�na praksa neposredne oddaje javnih naročil za nakup helikopterjev, ki sta jih izdelali družbi Agusta in Agusta Bell za zahteve različnih teles Italije, brez kakr�nihkoli razpisnih ponudb.
The Commission therefore opened another infringement procedure (No 2003/2158).
Komisija je zato začela �e en postopek za ugotovitev kr�itve (�t. 2003/2158).
With regard to the Corpo Carabinieri (Ministry of Defence), the information communicated to the Commission indicates that, in the period 2000 to 2002, the Corpo Carabinieri awarded two contracts to Agusta to purchase four helicopters, without any tendering procedure.
Informacija glede Corpo Carabinieri (ministrstvo za obrambo), ki jo je dobila Komisija, pove, da je v letih od 2000 do 2002, to ddalo dve naročili družbi Agusta za nakup dveh helikopterjev brez razpisnih ponudb.
The Commission noted that the Corpo Carabinieri’s helicopter fleet is also essentially composed of Agusta or Agusta Bell helicopters.
Komisija je navedla, da so tudi v floti helikopterjev Corpo Carabinieri v glavnem helikopterji Agusta ali Agusta Bell.
As regards the Corpo Nazionale dei Vigili del Fuoco (the fire brigade, Ministry of the Interior), the Commission noted in particular that the latter directly awarded the following contracts to the company Agusta, without any tendering procedure: (i) on 10 June 2002, a contract to purchase four Agusta Bell AB 412 helicopters for approximately EUR 30.5 million; (ii) on 23 December 2002, a contract to purchase four Agusta A 109 Power helicopters for
Komisija je navedla, da je Corpo Nazionale dei Vigili del Fuoco (gasilska brigada, ministrstvo za notranje zadeve) neposredno oddala naslednja javna naročila družbi Agusta brez razpisnih ponudb: (i) 10. junija 10 2002 kupoprodajno pogodbo za �tiri helikopterje Agusta Bell AB za približno 30,5 millijona eurov; (ii) 23. decembra 2002 kupoprodajno
As to the Corpo Forestale dello Stato (Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy), apart from the purchases which formed the subjectmatter of Case C-525/03, that body is said to have purchased one other Agusta helicopter.
Corpo Forestale dello Stato (ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in gozdarstvo) naj bi poleg nakupa, ki je bil predmet v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, kupilo tudi en helikopter Agusta.
Likewise, the Commission noted that the Corpo Forestale’s helicopter fleet is essentially composed of Agusta or Agusta Bell helicopters.
Komisija je navedla, da so v floti helikopterjev Corpo Forestale prav tako v glavnem helikopterji Agusta ali Agusta Bell.
Concerning the Department of Civil Protection, the Commission was informed that it concluded a contract to leasepurchase ‘Agusta’ helicopters.
Komisija je bila obve�čena, da je oddelek za civilno za�čito oddal naročilo za nakup helikopterjev Agusta.
The Italian authorities replied by way of a fax from its Permanent Representation to the European Union of 9 December 2003.
Italijanski organi so 9. decembra 2003 po telefaksu odgovorili s stalnega predstavni�tva pri Evropski uniji.
Considering the Italian authorities’ reply unsatisfactory, the Commission sent the Italian Republic a reasoned opinion on 5 February 2004, inviting it to comply with that reasoned opinion within two months of notification thereof.
Ker Komisija z odgovorom italijanskih organov ni bila zadovoljna, je Italijanski republiki 5. februarja 2004 poslala obrazloženo mnenje in jo pozvala, naj se v dvomesečnem roku od vročitve s tem mnenjem uskladi.
As regards the other state corps, the Commission considered — in spite of the fact that it did not have any information as to the specific contracts — that the air fleets of the Guardia Costiera (Coastguard), an emanation of the Corpo delle Capitanerie di Porto (Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport), of the Guardia di Finanza (Revenue Guard Corps, Ministry of Economy and Finance) and of the Polizia di Stato (State Police, Ministry of the Interior) were also composed exclusively or predominantly of Agusta or Agusta Bell helicopters.
Glede ostalih državnih teles je Komisija menila – čeprav ni imela nobenih informacij glede posameznih pogodb –, da so bile v zračni floti Guardia Costiera (obalna straža), v okviru Corpo delle Capitanerie di Porto (ministrstvo za promet in zveze), Guardia di Finanza (Revenue Guard Corps, ministrstvo za gospodarstvo in finance) in Polizia di Stato (State Police, ministrstvo za notranje zadeve) prav tako izključno ali večinoma helikopterji Agusta ali Agusta Bell.
The Italian authorities responded to the reasoned opinion in three letters from the Italian Permanent Representation to the European Union. 7
Italijanski organi so na obrazloženo mnenje odgovorili s tremi dopisi stalnega predstavni�tva Italijanske republike pri Evropski uniji. 7
B — Prelitigation procedure
B – Predhodni postopek
The Commission considered that the Italian authorities did not provide sufficient arguments to refute the observations formulated in the reasoned opinion and noted that the Italian Republic did not take any measures intended to bring the incriminated practice to an end, and accordingly brought
Komisija je menila, da italijanski organi niso predstavili dovolj trditev za zavrnitev stali�č iz obrazloženega mnenja in je navedla, da Italijanska republika ni sprejela nobenih
7 — (i) The first dated 5 April 2004 communicating a note from the head of the legislative service of the Ministry for Community policy of 2 April 2004; (ii) the second dated 13 May 2004 transmitting a note from the President of the Council of Ministers (department of Community policy) of 11 May 2004; and (iii) the third dated 27 May 2004 forwarding a note from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (department of civil protection) of 12 May 2004.
7 – (i) Prvo z dne 5. aprila 2004 s sporočilom vodje pravne službe ministrstva za politiko Skupnosti z dne 2. aprila 2004, (ii) drugo z dne 13. maja 2004 s sporočilom predsednika Sveta ministrov (oddelek za politiko Skupnosti) z dne 11. maja 2004 in (iii) tretje z dne 27. maja 2004 s sporočilom predsedstva Sveta ministrov (oddelek za civilno za�čito) z dne 12. maja 2004.
The Commission — not having found any information pertaining to the organisation of a tender at Community level for the purchase of helicopters to meet the requirements of the abovementioned Italian ministries and departments — considered that the above helicopters manufactured by Agusta were directly purchased in breach of the procedures laid down in Directive 93/36 and, earlier, in Directive 77/62, Directive 80/767 and Directive 88/295. On 17 October 2003, the Commission sent the Italian Government
Komisija – ki ni na�la nobene informacije glede organizacije razpisa na stopnji Skupnosti za nakup helikopterjev za potrebe zgoraj navedenih italijanskih ministrstev in oddelkov – je menila, da so bili zgoraj navedeni helikopterji, ki jih je izdelala družba Agusta, neposredno kupljeni ob kr�itvi postopkov, določenih v Direktivi 93/36 in
COMMISSION v ITALY
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI ukrepov, da bi se kr�itev končala, zato je pri Sodi�ču 15. septembra 2005 vložila tožbo.
the present action before the Court on 15 September 2005.
republiki naloži plačilo
The Commission claims that the Court should:
Komisija predlaga, naj Sodi�če:
The Italian Republic contends that the action should be dismissed as inadmissible and, in any event, dismissed as unfounded.
Italijanska republika ugovarja, da bi bilo treba tožbo zavreči kot nedopustno, v skrajnem primeru pa zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
Both parties submitted oral argument at the hearing which took place on 17 April 2007.
Obe stranki sta ustne navedbe predložili na zasli�anju 17. aprila 2007.
8 — The Commission also points out that, according to its information, the Italian Government by way of a negotiated procedure directly purchased in December 2003 further Agusta helicopters to meet the requirements of Guardia di Finanza, Polizia di Stato, Carabinieri and Corpo Forestale and, as follows from the date of their registration at the Italian Court of Auditors, Italy did not annul these contracts after it had received the reasoned opinion.
8 – Komisija poudarja tudi, da je glede na informacije italijanska vlada s postopkom s pogajanji decembra 2003 neposredno kupila kasnej�e helikopterje družbe Agusta za zahteve Guardia di Finanza, Polizia di Stato, Carabinieri in Corpo Forestale, in kot izhaja iz datuma njihove registracije na italijanskem računskem sodi�ču, Italija teh naročil ni razveljavila, potem ko je dobila obrazloženo mnenje.
None the less, in view of the similarity of the relevant provisions in these directives, as suggested by the Commission, I consider that for reasons of clarity and simplicity it is sufficient for me to refer henceforth in my analysis solely to Directive 93/36.
Torej pritožba v predhodnem postopku ne ustreza tožbenim predlogom te tožbe, predložene Sodi�ču. V dupliki Italija navaja, da glede na splo�na in nenatančna dejstva, ki jih je navedla Komisija, tožba ne zadosti zahtevam, ki jih določa sodna praksa.
did not refer to military supplies, the only supplies mentioned during that procedure being civil supplies.
in je naročila neposredno oddala Agusti, brez predhodne objave javnega razpisa na stopnji Skupnosti.
Moreover, in the framework of the prelitigation procedure the Commission merely cited a number of contracts concluded in recent years, that is to say in 2002 and 2003, by Corpo dei Vigili del Fuoco, Corpo Forestale and the Carabinieri with Agusta.
V tem primeru se razprava osredotoči na to, ali Italija lahko zakonito odstopi od določb Skupnosti glede oddaje javnega naročila.
Therefore, the complaint raised during the prelitigation procedure does not correspond to the form of order sought in the present application to the Court.
9Komisija se v tožbenih predlogih Komisije ne sklicuje le na Direktivo 93/36 ampak tudi na predhodne direktive, zlasti na direktive 77/62, 80/767 in 88/295.
In addition, in its rejoinder, Italy contends that having regard to the vague and imprecise character of the facts alleged by the Commission, the action does not satisfy the requirements laid down by the case-law.
Glede na podobnost upo�tevnih določb v teh direktivah pa kljub temu menim, kot je to predlagala Komisija, da je zame dovolj, da se v nadaljnji razčlenitvi sklicujem le na Direktivo 93/36.
In its defence, the Italian Government disputes the admissibility of the present action.
Italijanska vlada ugovarja dopustnosti te tožbe.
The principle ne bis in idem would be breached, as that ordinance was already considered by the Court in Case C-525/03. 10
Načelo ne bis in idem naj bi bilo kr�eno, saj je Sodi�če to odredbo že presojalo v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji. 10
Main arguments of the parties
Bistvene trditve strank
Italy submits that during the course of the prelitigation procedure the Commission
Italija trdi, da se Komisija v predhodnem postopku ni sklicevala na voja�ko opremo
It considers that the prelitigation procedure never concerned military
Meni, da se predhodni postopek nikoli ni nana�al na voja�ko opremo. Nana�al
9 — Namely Directive 93/36 and, previously, Directive 77/62, Directive 80/767 and Directive 88/295.
9 – Predvsem Direktiva 93/36 ter predhodno direktive 77/62, 80/767 in 88/295.
In this regard, although it is true that the subjectmatter of proceedings brought under Article 226 EC is circumscribed by the prelitigation procedure provided for in that provision and that, consequently, the Commission’s reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same objections, that requirement cannot go so far as to mean that in every case exactly the same wording must be used in both, where the subjectmatter of the proceedings has not been extended or altered but simply narrowed.
Opozoriti je treba, da čeprav je predmet tožbe, vložene na podlagi člena 226 ES, omejen s predhodnim postopkom, predvidenim v tej določbi, zaradi česar morata posledično obrazloženo mnenje Komisije in tožba temeljiti na enakih očitkih, ta zahteva ne more biti tako ostra, da bi morala biti v vsakem primeru popolnoma skladno formulirana, če predmet spora ni bil raz�irjen ali spremenjen, temveč le omejen.
Accordingly, in its application the Commission may clarify its initial grounds of objection provided, however, that it does not alter the subjectmatter of the dispute. 12 supplies.
Tako lahko Komisija prvotne očitke natančno pojasni, če ne spremeni predmeta spora.
Rather, it related to civil supplies intended to meet inter alia the needs of certain military corps of the Italian Republic.
12 se je bolj na civilno opremo, da bi med drugim zadostil potrebam določenih voja�kih organov Italijanske republike.
With regard to the alleged imprecision, the Commission contends that it had always been clear since the letter of formal notice that the subjectmatter of the procedure was the practice of directly awarding contracts to Agusta over a long period of time, which was never suspended.
Glede na zatrjevano nenatančnost Komisija trdi, da je bilo že od pisnega opomina jasno, da je bila predmet te zadeve neposredna oddaja naročil družbi Agusta za dalj�e časovno obdobje, ki se ni nikoli prekinilo.
The purpose of the procedure was clear to Italy, which could and has defended itself, by producing inter alia a number of annexed documents.
Namen tega postopka je bil Italiji jasen, saj se je lahko in se tudi je branila, vključno s tem, da je predložila veliko dokumentov.
In addition, the Commission submits that the procedure which gave rise to Case C-525/03 had a different subjectmatter from that of the present case.
Poleg tega Komisija trdi, da je bil predmet postopka v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji drugačen kot predmet tega postopka.
13 It is clear from the file before the Court that the Commission’s case is only about civil supplies purchased in order to meet the requirements of certain corps of the Italian State, some of which are of a military character and some of a civil character.
Najprej se mi zdi prepričljiva pojasnitev Komisije, da se pridevnik „voja�ki“ precej nedvoumno nana�a na določeno državno „telo“, bolj kot na „opremo“, kot trdi Italijanska vlada.
In fact, a comparison of the reasoned opinion and the application, which are framed in almost identical terms, reveals
13Iz spisa, s katerim razpolaga Sodi�če, izhaja, da gre pri Komisiji le za civilno opremo za zadostitev potreb dolo-
According to the Court’s settled caselaw, the Commission must indicate, in any application made under Article 226 EC, the specific complaints on which the Court is asked to rule and, at the very least in summary form, the legal and factual particulars on which those complaints are based. 11
Glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča mora Komisija v vsaki tožbi na podlagi člena 226 ES navesti natančne trditve, za katere se Sodi�ču predlaga, naj o njih odloči, ter nazadnje v obliki povzetka tudi pravno in dejansko podlago teh trditev. 11