natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On the contrary, provided that (i) the genuineness of their intention is confirmed by their actual pursuit of a course of studies or by acting as an au pair, (ii) they obtain work lawfully in the host Member State, and (iii) they satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, the persons concerned can fully rely on the rights which that provision confers upon them.
Na drugi strani pa, če se potrdi resničnost njihovega namena z dejanskim �tudijem ali opravljanjem dejavnosti kot „aupair“, če zakonito najdejo delo v državi članici gostiteljici in če izpolnijo pogoje iz člena 6(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80, lahko zadevne osebe uveljavljajo vse pravice, ki jim jih ta določba podeljuje.
The German and Netherlands Governments refer finally to Directive 2004/114.
Nem�ka in nizozemska vlada se nazadnje sklicujeta na Direktivo 2004/114.
They infer from the scheme of that directive that the Community legislature intended to permit students to take up employment and to work for a certain number of hours without, however, being regarded as paid workers and, in consequence, without being able by that means to join the labour market of the host Member State.
Na podlagi zgradbe te direktive sklepata, da je normodajalec Skupnosti hotel omogočiti �tudentu, da se zaposli in da opravi določeno �tevilo ur dela, vendar ne da bi se ga obravnavalo kot delavca in torej ne da bi imel na podlagi tega dostop do trga dela države članice gostiteljice.
However, Directive 2004/114 is not relevant.
Vendar navedena direktiva ni upo�tevna.
Under Article 4(1)(a) thereof, Directive 2004/114 applies without prejudice to more favourable provisions of bilateral or multilateral agreements between, on the one hand, the Community or the Community and its Member States and, on the other, one or more third States.
Na podlagi člena 4(1)(a) te direktive se ta uporablja namreč samo, če ne obstajajo ugodnej�e določbe dvostranskih ali večstranskih sporazumov med Skupnostjo ali Skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami na eni strani in eno ali več tretjimi državami na drugi strani.
Consequently, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 57 of her Opinion, Directive 2004/114 cannot justify a narrow construction of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 and no interpretation of that provision can be inferred from it.
Kot je generalna pravobranilka opozorila v točki 57 sklepnih predlogov, z Direktivo 2004/114 tako ni mogoče utemeljiti ozkega razumevanja člena 6(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80 in z njo te določbe ni mogoče razlagati.
The answer to the question referred must therefore be that the fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
Na postavljeno vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti, da dejstvo, da je bilo tur�kemu državljanu dovoljeno vstopiti na ozemlje države članice kot osebi „aupair“ ali �tudentu, ne more odvzeti temu državljanu statusa „delavca“ in mu preprečiti vključitve v „zakoniti trg dela“ te države članice v smislu člena 6(1) Sklepa �t. 1/80.
Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.
To dejstvo torej navedenemu državljanu ne more preprečiti, da bi se za podalj�anje svojega delovnega dovoljenja in za pridobitev z njim povezane pravice do prebivanja skliceval na to določbo.
The fact that a Turkish national was granted leave to enter the territory of a Member State as an au pair or as a student cannot deprive him of the status of ‘worker’ and prevent him from being regarded as ‘duly registered as belonging to the labour force’ of that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association.
Dejstvo, da je bilo turškemu državljanu dovoljeno vstopiti na ozemlje države članice kot osebi „aupair“ ali študentu, ne more odvzeti temu državljanu statusa „delavca“ in mu preprečiti vključitve v „zakoniti trg dela“ te države članice v smislu člena 6(1) Sklepa št. 1/80 Pridružitvenega sveta z dne 19. septembra 1980 o razvoju pridružitve.
Accordingly, that fact cannot prevent that national from being able to rely on that provision for the purposes of obtaining renewed permission to work and a corollary right of residence.
To dejstvo torej navedenemu državljanu ne more preprečiti, da bi se za podaljšanje svojega delovnega dovoljenja in za pridobitev z njim povezane pravice do prebivanja skliceval na to določbo.
Case C-532/06
Zadeva C-532/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Symvoulio tis Epikrateias)
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Carrying out of a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for a residential area — Criteria which may be accepted as ‘criteria for qualitative selection’ or ‘award criteria’ — Economically most advantageous tender — Compliance with the award criteria set out in the contract documents or contract notice — Subsequent determination of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice — Principle of equal treatment of economic operators and obligation of transparency)
„Direktiva 92/50/EGS – Javna naročila storitev – Izvedba �tudije vpisovanja v kataster, urbanizacije in izvr�itvenega akta za bivalno območje – Merila, ki jih je mogoče uporabiti kot ‚merila za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti‘ ali ‚merila za oddajo‘ – Ekonomsko najugodnej�a ponudba – Spo�tovanje meril za oddajo, določenih v razpisni dokumentaciji ali obvestilu o naročilu – Naknadna določitev ponderiranih koeficientov in podmeril k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v razpisni dokumentaciji ali obvestilu o naročilu – Načelo enakega obravnavanja gospodarskih subjektov in zahteva po preglednosti“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 24 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Directive 92/50 — Award of contracts
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil storitev – Direktiva 92/50 – Oddaja javnih naročil
SUMMARY — CASE C-532/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-532/06
Article 36(1), namely, the lowest price or the economically most advantageous tender.
ceni bodisi na ekonomsko najugodnej�i ponudbi.
In a tendering procedure, a contracting authority is precluded by Articles 23(1), 32 and 36(1) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, from taking into account as ‘award criteria’ rather than as ‘qualitative selection criteria’ the tenderers’ experience, manpower and equipment and their ability to perform the contract by the anticipated deadline.
Členi 23(1), 32 in 36(1) Direktive 92/50 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52, nasprotujejo temu, da naročnik v okviru postopka za oddajo naročila izku�enj ponudnikov, �tevila zaposlenih in opremljenosti ter sposobnosti, da naročilo opravijo v predvidenem času, ne upo�teva kot „merila za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti“, temveč kot „merila za oddajo“.
(see paras 26-28, 32)
(Glej točke od 26 do 28 in 32.)
Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, precludes the contracting authority in a tendering procedure from stipulating at a later date the weighting factors and sub-criteria to be applied to the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice.
Člen 36(2) Direktive 92/50 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52, kot ga je treba razumeti ob upo�tevanju načela enakega obravnavanja gospodarskih subjektov in zahteve po preglednosti, ki izhaja iz njega, nasprotuje temu, da naročnik v okviru postopka oddaje naročila naknadno določi ponderirane koeficiente in podmerila k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v razpisni dokumentaciji ali v obvestilu o naročilu.
Article 36(2) requires that potential tenderers should be aware of all the
Člen 36(2) zahteva,
While that directive does not in theory preclude the examination of the tenderers’ suitability and the award of the contract from taking place simultaneously, the two procedures are nevertheless distinct and are governed by different rules.
Preverjanje ustreznosti ponudnikov in oddaja naročila sta namreč, čeprav ta direktiva teoretično ne izključuje možnosti, da bi potekala hkrati, različni operaciji, ki ju urejajo različna pravila.
The suitability of tenderers is to be checked in accordance with the criteria of economic and financial standing and of technical capability referred to in Articles 31 and 32 of the directive, whereas the award of contracts is to be based on the criteria set out in
Ustreznost ponudnikov se preveri v skladu z merili glede gospodarskega in finančnega položaja ter tehničnih zmožnosti iz členov 31 in 32 navedene direktive, medtem ko oddaja naročila temelji na merilih, na�tetih v členu 36(1) iste direktive, torej bodisi na najnižji
LIANAKIS AND OTHERS of the award criteria which it has not previously brought to the tenderers’ attention.
LIANAKIS IN DRUGI za oddajo, če z njimi ni prej seznanil ponudnikov.
elements to be taken into account by the contracting authority in identifying the economically most advantageous offer, and their relative importance, when they prepare their tenders.
da so potencialni kandidati pri pripravi ponudb seznanjeni z vsemi dejavniki, ki jih naročnik upo�teva za opredelitev ekonomsko najugodnej�e ponudbe, in njihovo relativno pomembnostjo.
Therefore, a contracting authority cannot apply weighting rules or sub-criteria in respect
Zato naročnik ne more uporabiti pravil o ponderaciji ali podmerilih k merilom
(see paras 36, 38, 45, operative part)
(Glej točke 36, 38, 45 in izrek.)
2008 — CASE C-532/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-532/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)24 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 24. januarja 2008*
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece), made by decision of 28 November 2006, received at the Court on 29 December 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-532/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Grčija) z odločbo z dne 28. novembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 29. decembra 2006, v postopku
* Language of the case: Greek.
* Jezik postopka: gr�čina.
LIANAKIS AND OTHERS
LIANAKIS IN DRUGI
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass,
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka,
2008 — CASE C-532/06 after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-532/06 ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, in essence, the interpretation of Articles 23(1), 32 and 36 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 23(1), 32 in 36 Direktive Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, str.
1), as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 328, p.
1), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997 (UL L 328, str.
1) (‘Directive 92/50’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 92/50).
The reference has been made in the context of two sets of proceedings brought by (1) the consortium of consultancy firms and experts comprising Emm.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru dveh sporov, in sicer v sporu med konzorcijem strokovno-svetovalnih pisarn, ki so ga oblikovali Emm. G.
Directive 92/50 coordinates the procedures for the award of public service contracts.
Z Direktivo Sveta 92/50/EGS se usklajujejo postopki za oddajo javnih naročil storitev.
To that end, the Directive determines which contracts must be subject to an award procedure and the procedural rules to be followed, including, in particular, the principle of equal treatment of economic operators, the criteria for the qualitative selection for operators (‘qualitative selection criteria’) and the criteria for the award of contracts (‘award criteria’).
V ta namen so v Direktivi določena na eni strani javna naročila, ki jih je treba izvesti po postopku javnega razpisa, na drugi strani pa postopkovna pravila, ki jih je treba upo�tevati, med njimi zlasti načelo enakega obravnavanja gospodarskih subjektov, merila za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti subjektov (imenovana merila za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti) in merila za oddajo javnih naročil (imenovana merila za oddajo).
Thus, Article 3(2) of Directive 92/50 provides that ‘[c]ontracting authorities shall ensure that there is no discrimination between different service providers’.
Tako je v členu 3(2) Direktive 92/50 določeno, da „[n]aročniki zagotovijo, da ni diskriminacije med različnimi ponudniki storitev“.
Article 23(1) of the Directive provides that ‘[c]ontracts shall be awarded on the basis of the criteria laid down in Chapter 3 [namely Articles 36 and 37], taking into account Article 24, after the suitability of the service providers not excluded under Article 29 has been checked by the contracting authorities in accordance with the criteria referred to in Articles 31 and 32’.
V členu 23(1) navedene direktive je določeno, da „[se] [naročila] oddajo na podlagi meril iz poglavja 3 [torej členov 36 in 37], ob upo�tevanju člena 24, potem ko naročniki preverijo ustreznost ponudnikov storitev, ki niso bili izključeni na podlagi člena 29, skladno z merili iz členov 31 in 32“.
According to Article 32 of the Directive:
V členu 32 iste direktive je določeno:
The ability of service providers to perform services may be evaluated in particular with regard to their skills, efficiency, experience and reliability.
Sposobnost ponudnikov za izvajanje storitev je mogoče oceniti zlasti glede na njihovo usposobljenost, učinkovitost, izku�nje in zanesljivost.
Evidence of the service provider’s technical capability may be furnished by one or more of the following means according to the nature, quantity and purpose of the services to be provided:
Dokazila o tehničnih zmožnostih ponudnika storitve se lahko predložijo na naslednje načine, enega ali več, v skladu z naravo, količino in namenom storitve, ki jo je treba zagotoviti, in sicer z:
(a) the service provider’s educational and professional qualifications and/or those of the firm’s managerial staff and, in particular, those of the person or persons responsible for providing the services;
(a) izobrazbo in poklicno usposobljenostjo izvajalca storitve in/ali vodstvenega osebja družbe ter zlasti osebe ali oseb, odgovornih za izvajanje storitev;
(b) a list of the principal services provided in the past three years, with the sums, dates and recipients, public or private, of the services provided:
(b) seznamom glavnih storitev, izvedenih v zadnjih treh letih, z zneski, datumi in naročniki, javnimi ali zasebnimi, izvedenih storitev;
(c) an indication of the technicians or technical bodies involved, whether or not belonging directly to the service provider, especially those responsible for quality control;
(c) navedbo o vključenih tehnikih ali tehni�kih teles[ih], ki lahko neposredno spadajo pod ponudnika storitve ali pa ne, zlasti tistih, ki so pristojni za kontrolo kakovosti;
(d) a statement of the service provider’s average annual manpower and the number of managerial staff for the last three years;
(d) izjavo o povprečni letni delovni sili ponudnika storitve in �tevilu vodstvenega osebja za zadnja tri leta;
(e) a statement of the tool, plant or technical equipment available to the service provider for carrying out the services;
(e) izjavo o orodju, obratih in tehnični opremljenosti, ki je na voljo ponudniku storitev za opravljanje storitev;
(f) a description of the service provider’s measures for ensuring quality and his study and research facilities;
(f) opisom ukrepov ponudnika storitev za zagotavljanje kvalitete in njegovih �tudijskih in raziskovalnih možnosti;
Article 36 of Directive 92/50 provides:
V členu 36 Direktive 92/50 je določeno:
Without prejudice to national laws, regulations or administrative provisions on the remuneration of certain services, the criteria on which the contracting authority shall base the award of contracts may be:
Brez poseganja v nacionalne zakone in druge predpise o plačevanju nekaterih storitev, so merila, na podlagi katerih naročnik odda naročilo, lahko:
(a) where the award is made to the economically most advantageous tender, various criteria relating to the contract: for example, quality, technical merit, aesthetic
(a) če je oddano za ekonomsko najugodnej�o ponudbo, različna merila v zvezi z naročilom: na primer kakovost, tehnična ustreznost, estetske ali funkcionalne
2008 — CASE C-532/06 and functional characteristics, technical assistance and after-sales service, delivery date, delivery period or period of completion, price; or
2008 – ZADEVA C-532/06 značilnosti, tehnična pomoč in storitev po prodaji, datum dostave, rok dostave ali izvedbe, cena ali
Where the contract is to be awarded to the economically most advantageous tender, the contracting authority shall state in the contract documents or in the contract notice the award criteria which it intends to apply, where possible in descending order of importance.’
Če bo naročilo oddano gospodarsko [ekonomsko] najugodnej�emu ponudniku, navedejo naročniki v razpisni dokumentaciji ali v obvestilu o naročilu merila za oddajo, ki jih nameravajo uporabiti, po možnosti v zaporedju od bolj pomembnega k manj pomembnemu.“
In 2004, the Municipal Council of Alexandroupolis issued a call for tenders for a contract to carry out a project in respect of the cadastre, town plan and implementing measure for the Palagia area, a part of Alexandroupolis with fewer than 2 000 inhabitants.
V letu 2004 je občinski svet občine Alexandroupolis objavil razpis, da bi oddal javno naročilo izvedbe �tudije vpisovanja v kataster, urbanizacije in izvr�itvenega akta za območje Palagia, del navedene občine z manj kot 2000 prebivalci.
The budget for the project was EUR 461 737.
Predvideni izdatki za to �tudijo so bili 461.737 EUR.
The contract notice referred to the award criteria in order of priority: (1) the proven experience of the expert on projects carried out over the last three years; (2) the firm’s manpower and equipment; and (3) the ability to complete the project by the anticipated deadline, together with the firm’s commitments and its professional potential.
V obvestilu o naročilu so bili kot merila za oddajo po vrstnem redu glede na pomembnost navedeni: prvič, izku�nje, ki jih potrdi strokovnjak, pridobljene med �tudijami, opravljenimi v zadnjih treh letih, drugič, �tevilo zaposlenih in opremljenost svetovalne pisarne in, tretjič, sposobnost izvedbe �tudije v predvidenem trenutku v povezavi s prevzetimi obveznostmi pisarne in njenimi znanstvenimi možnostmi.
During the evaluation procedure, in order to evaluate the tenderers’ bids, the project award committee of the Municipality of Alexandroupolis (‘the Project Award Committee’) defined the weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract notice.
Za oceno ponudb ponudnikov je komisija za oddajo javnega naročila občine Dimos Alexandroupolis (v nadaljevanju: komisija za oddajo javnega naročila) med postopkom ocenjevanja določila ponderirane koeficiente in podmerila k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v obvestilu o naročilu.
Accordingly, it set weightings of 60%, 20% and 20% for each of the three award criteria referred to in the contract notice.
Tako je določila ponderirane koeficiente 60 %, 20 % in 20 % za vsa tri merila za oddajo, navedena v obvestilu o naročilu.
In addition, it stipulated that experience (first award criterion) should be evaluated by reference to the value of completed projects.
Poleg tega je določila, da je treba izku�nje (prvo merilo za oddajo) presojati glede na vrednost opravljenih �tudij.
Thus, for experience on projects worth up to EUR 500 000, a tenderer would be awarded 0 points; between EUR 500 000 and EUR 1 000 000, 6 points; between EUR 1 000 000 and EUR 1 500 000, 12 points; and so on up to a maximum score of 60 points for experience on projects worth over EUR 12 000 000.
Tako je ponudnik prejel 0 točk za vrednost do 500.000 EUR, 6 točk za vrednost med 500.000 in 1.000.000 EUR, 12 točk za vrednost med 1.000.000 in 1.500.000 EUR in tako dalje do najvi�je ocene 60 točk za vrednost nad 12.000.000 EUR.
A firm’s manpower and equipment (second award criterion) were to be assessed by reference to the size of the project team.
Število zaposlenih in opremljenost svetovalne pisarne (drugo merilo za oddajo) je bilo treba presojati glede na velikost �tudijske skupine.
A tenderer would therefore be awarded 2 points for a team of 1 to 5 persons, 4 points for a team of 6 to 10 persons, and so on up to a maximum score of 20 points for a team of more than 45 persons.
Tako je ponudnik prejel 2 točki za skupino od 1 do 5 oseb, 4 točke za skupino od 6 do 10 oseb in tako dalje do najvi�je ocene 20 točk za skupino z več kot 45 osebami.
Finally, the Project Award Committee decided that the ability to complete the project by the anticipated deadline (third award criterion) should be assessed by reference
Nazadnje je komisija za oddajo javnega naročila odločila, da je treba sposobnost izvedbe �tudije v predvidenem trenutku (tretje merilo za oddajo) presojati glede na
2008 — CASE C-532/06 to the value of the firm’s commitments.
2008 – ZADEVA C-532/06 vrednost prevzetih obveznosti.
Accordingly, a tenderer would be awarded the maximum score of 20 points for work worth less than EUR 15 000; 18 points for work worth between EUR 15 000 and EUR 60 000; 16 points for work worth between EUR 60 000 and EUR 100 000; and so on down to a minimum score of 0 points for work worth more than EUR 1 500 000.
Tako je ponudnik prejel najvi�jo oceno 20 točk za vrednost pod 15.000 EUR, 18 točk za vrednost med 15.000 in 60.000 EUR, 16 točk za vrednost med 60.000 in 100.000 EUR in tako dalje do najnižje ocene 0 točk za vrednost nad 1.500.000 EUR.
In application of those rules, the Project Award Committee allocated first place to the Loukatos consortium (78 points), second place to the Planitiki consortium (72 points) and third place to the Lianakis consortium (70 points).
Ob uporabi navedenih pravil je komisija za oddajo javnega naročila konzorcij Loukatos uvrstila na prvo mesto z 78 točkami, konzorcij Planitiki na drugo mesto z 72 točkami in konzorcij Lianakis na tretje mesto s 70 točkami.
Consequently, in its report of 27 April 2005, it proposed that the project be awarded to the Loukatos consortium.
Zato je v zapisniku z dne 27. aprila 2005 predlagala oddajo �tudije konzorciju Loukatos.
By decision of 10 May 2005, the Municipal Council of Alexandroupolis approved the Project Award Committee’s report and awarded the project to the Loukatos consortium.
Z odločbo z dne 10. maja 2005 je občinski svet občine Alexandroupolis odobril zapisnik komisije za oddajo javnega naročila in izvedbo �tudije oddal konzorciju Loukatos.