natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In other words, whereas Directive 2004/18 focuses on the concept of a ‘contracting authority’, in respect of which, for reasons of legal certainty, it is not appropriate to embark on the task of determining which part of the organisation is aimed at meeting needs in the general interest and which part is aimed at other objectives, Directive 2004/17 enables perfect delimitation of the material sphere of the activities of the ‘contracting entities’, by providing specific guidelines in that regard in Article 9.
To pomeni, da je v Direktivi 2004/18 v sredi�ču pojem „naročnika“, za katerega iz razloga pravne varnosti ni priporočljivo, da posku�a ločiti tisti del svoje dejavnosti, ki je namenjen zadovoljevanju splo�nih interesov, od dejavnosti, s katero si prizadeva doseči druge cilje, v Direktivi 2004/17 pa je dovoljena popolna razmejitev stvarnih področij dejavnosti „naročnikov“, o čemer so v členu 9 navedena konkretna pravila.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-393/06 subject, where applicable, to the legislation on public procurement (paragraph 37).
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-393/06 nasprotnem primeru pa veljajo za njihova javna naročila predpisi o oddaji javnih naročil (točka 37).
To put it another way, if a ‘contracting authority’, in the strictest sense, within the meaning of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 and Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/17, invites tenders for activities not mentioned in Articles 3 to 7 of the latter directive, the former will apply.
Z drugimi besedami, če „naročnik“ v najstrožjem pomenu besede, to je v smislu člena 1(9) Direktive 2004/18 in člena 2(1)(a) Direktive 2004/17, odda javno naročilo za dejavnost, ki ni zajeta v členih od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17, se uporabi Direktiva 2004/18.
However, if the body which pursues activities outside that sphere is a public undertaking or holds special or exclusive rights (Article 2(1)(b) and 2(b) of Directive 2004/17) neither of the two directives applies.
Če pa je subjekt, ki deluje v teh okoli�činah, javno podjetje ali podjetje, ki ima posebne ali izključne pravice [člen 2(1)(b) in (2)(b) Direktive 2004/17], se ne uporabi nobena od teh direktiv.
B — The concept of a body governed by public law: the significance of the level of competition in the market (second question)
B – Pojem oseba javnega prava: pomen stopnje konkurence na trgu (drugo vprašanje)
In short, I propose that the Court should reply to the first of the three questions submitted by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, declaring that Directive 2004/17 does not govern contracts which ‘contracting entities’, within the meaning of Article 2(2), conclude in respect of activities not mentioned in Articles 3 to 7.
Če povzamem, predlagam Sodi�ču, da na prvo od treh vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien odgovori, da se Direktiva 2004/17 ne uporablja za javna naročila, ki jih oddajo „naročniki“ v smislu člena 2(2) v okviru dejavnosti, ki niso navedene v členih od 3 do 7.
All those who have taken part in these preliminary ruling proceedings are agreed that the contract in the main proceedings concerns an activity of Fernwärme Wien which does not come under Directive 2004/17 (the construction of a refrigeration plant for an office and shopping centre), for which reason, in line with the reply I have proposed to the first question, it is appropriate to ascertain, as the referring court requests, whether the undertaking is a contracting authority because, if it were, it would be governed by Directive 2004/18.
Vsi udeleženci v tem postopku za sprejetje predhodnih odločb se strinjajo, da se zadevno naročilo v postopku o glavni stvari nana�a na dejavnost Fernwärme Wien, ki ne spada pod Direktivo 2004/17 (postavitev klimatske naprave v poslovnem in trgovskem centru), zato je treba v skladu z odgovorom, ki ga predlagam na prvo vpra�anje, razjasniti, kot to napro�a predložitveni organ, ali je ta družba „naročnik“, ker se v tem primeru zanjo uporabi Direktiva 2004/18.
That solution is founded on Community case-law.
Ta re�itev ima podlago v sodni praksi Skupnosti.
In the judgment in Strabag and Kostmann, 31 the Court held that Directive 93/38 (and therefore Directive 2004/17 too) applies to ‘contracting entities’ in so far as they carry out activities in the material sectors provided for therein.
Sodba z dne 16. junija 2005 v zdruŽenih zadevah Strabag in Kostmann 31 dejansko potrjuje, da se Direktiva 93/38 (in torej tudi Direktiva 2004/17) uporablja za „naročnike“, če opravljajo dejavnost na področjih, ki so navedena v direktivi. V
Specifically, it is necessary to determine whether Fernwärme Wien is a body governed by public law.
Konkretno je treba preveriti, ali gre za „osebo javnega prava“.
It is not in dispute that the undertaking has legal personality and is closely connected with Vienna City Council, which owns its capital, directly and indirectly.
Pravna oseba družbe in tesna povezava z mestom Dunaj, ki neposredno ali posredno nadzoruje njen kapital, nista vpra�ljivi.
The uncertainty concerns the first legislative requirement, which is whether
Dvom se poraja pri prvi zahtevi direktive, to je pri določilu, da je
34 its particular aim is to satisfy needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.
AIGNER upo�tevati neobstoj pridobitnega cilja, neodgovornost za tveganje in morebitno financiranje iz javnih virov 34.
In that connection, it is necessary to examine the effect on the concept of the structure of the sector in which the body concerned carries out its activity.
V tem okviru je treba pregledati vpliv, ki ga ima struktura sektorja, v katerem oseba deluje, na pojem „industrijska ali tržna narava“.
First of all, the wording of the directive makes no reference at all to whether or not there may be competition with private undertakings, 35a situation which might be indicative that the public interest to be satisfied is industrial or commercial in nature 36 but would be insuf-
Sprva v formulaciji direktive ni bilo sklicevanja na morebitno konkurenco z zasebnimi podjetji 35, kar bi bil lahko
Further, it is common ground that the object of the undertaking is in the general interest, since it provides a district heating service by means of an environmentally friendly system, such as waste combustion.
Soglasje pa obstaja tudi o tem, da je dejavnost podjetja v splo�nem interesu, ker podjetje zagotavlja toplovodno ogrevanje mesta z uporabo do okolja prijaznega sistema, to je s sežiganjem odpadkov 32.
32The core of the dispute is therefore merely to decide whether that service has an industrial or commercial character.
Razprava se torej omejuje na vpra�anje, ali to podjetje nima „industrijske ali tržne“ narave.
ficient to exclude considerations other than the economic, 37 since the fact that it pursues its activity in a closed market is not essential for the purposes of identifying a body as one governed by public law. 38
indic, da gre za zadovoljevanje javnih potreb industrijske ali tržne narave 36, vendar pa to ne zadostuje za izključitev negospodarskih motivov 37, kajti neobstoj konkurence ni nujen pogoj za opredelitev osebe javnega prava 38.
For that purpose, it is necessary to take into account all the relevant legal and factual circumstances, such as those prevailing at the time of establishment of the body concerned and the conditions under which it exercises its activity, 33 including, in particular, the fact that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that it does not bear the risks,
S tem v zvezi je treba preučiti vse ustrezne pravne elemente in dejstva pa tudi okoli�čine, ki so privedle do nastanka zadevne osebe, ter razmere, v katerih opravlja svojo dejavnost 33. Pri tem je treba zlasti
The second question referred by the national court falls within the ambit of that case-law; it seeks to delimit the market concerned with a view to establishing the level of competition, but it starts from an erroneous premiss (which has been adopted by all those who have participated in these preliminary ruling proceedings), as is clear
V ta okvir sodne prakse se uvr�ča drugo vpra�anje predložitvenega organa, ki želi referenčni trg omejiti, zato da bi potrdil svojo pristojnost, pri tem pa izhaja (kot tudi vsi drugi udeleženci tega postopka za sprejetje predhodnih odločb) iz napačne
34 — Judgment in Korhonen and Others, paragraph 59.35 — Judgment in BFI Holding, paragraph 40.
34 – Sodba v zadevi Korkonnen in drugi, točka 59.35 – Zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi BFI Holding, točka 40.
36 — Judgments in BFI Holding, paragraph 49; Agorà and Excelsior, paragraph 38 in fine; and Adolf Truley, paragraph 60.
36 – Sodbe v zadevah BFI Holding, točka 49, Agorà in Excelsior, točka 38 do konca, in Adolf Truley, točka 60.
32 — The Court has taken a generous approach to the definition of ‘needs in the general interest’.
32 – Sodi�če je glede pojma „potrebe javnega interesa“ zavzelo �iroko stali�če.
37 — Judgments in BFI Holding, paragraph 43, and Adolf Truley, paragraph 61.
37 – Sodbi v zadevah BFI Holding, točka 43, in Adolf Truley, točka 61.
According to paragraph 44 of the judgment in BFI Holding, it is hard to imagine any activities that could not be carried on by private undertakings, and therefore the absence of competition would render meaningless the term ‘body governed by public law’ used in the directives.
V skladu s točko 44 sodbe v zadevi BFI Holding si je težko zamisliti dejavnosti, ki jih zasebna podjetja ne bi mogla opravljati; zato kriterij neobstoja konkurence pojmu subjekt javnega prava jemlje vsebino, predvideno v direktivah.
33 — Judgments in Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley [2003] ECR I-1931, paragraph 66, and Korhonen and Others, paragraphs 48 and 59.
33 – Sodbi z dne 27. februarja 2003 v zadevi Adolf Truley (C-373/00, Recueil, str. I-1931, točka 66) in v zadevi Korkonnen in drugi, točki 48 in 59.
38 — Judgment in BFI Holding, paragraph 47 in fine.
38 – Sodba v zadevi BFI Holding, točka 47 do konca.
In order to avoid the application of that provision, it would suffice for a body established solely to meet needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, to pursue strictly commercial activities while retaining its initial objects, and, when it increases the markets in which it participates, that body would avoid being classified as a body governed by public law, with the result that all its contracts, regardless of their nature, would be concluded free from the requirements of the harmonised Community legislation.
Da se podjetje, ki je bilo izrecno ustanovljeno z namenom zadovoljevanja potreb splo�nega interesa, ki nima industrijske ali tržne narave, izogne uporabi tega predpisa, bi zadostovalo, da se posveti čisto tržnim dejavnostim, s tem, da ohrani svoj prvotni cilj in da se pri �irjenju trži�č, na katerih bo dejavno, izogne opredelitvi „oseba javnega prava“, tako da bodo vsa njegova javna naročila, ne glede na vrsto, lahko oddana brez upo�tevanja zahtev Skupnosti po usklajevanju.
In essence, my view supplements the solution in Universale-Bau, 41which concerned a converse situation in which the undertaking in question had been established for an exclusively private activity and subsequently became responsible for running a public service.
V osnovi moje stali�če raz�iri odločitev v sodbi v zadevi Universale-Bau 41, v kateri je bil obravnavan obraten primer: �lo je za podjetje, ustanovljeno izključno za zasebno dejavnost, ki je kasneje postalo ponudnik javnih storitev.
In both cases, the functional interpretation is guided by the fact that undertakings which meet needs in the general interest and are capable of operating outside market forces may award contracts without having regard to those forces.
V obeh primerih temelji funkcionalna razlaga na dejstvu, da se podjetja, ki opravljajo dejavnosti splo�nega interesa in ki lahko delujejo zunaj sil trga, pri oddaji naročil ne ravnajo po teh silah.
In fact, Directive 2004/18 is founded on a subjective theory, applying to any organisational structure which acts as a ‘contracting authority’, regardless of the material sphere in which it operates (infection theory), unless it awards contracts that are excluded pursuant to Articles 12 to 18.
Dejansko temelji Direktiva 2004/18 na subjektivnem dojemanju, ki se uporablja za vsako organizacijsko strukturo, ki deluje kot „naročnik“, ne glede na stvarno področje delovanja (teorija kontaminacije), razen če odda javna naročila, ki niso zajeta v členih od 12 do 18.
In the case of ‘bodies governed by public law’, the directive requires such bodies to have been specifically established for the purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, so the market to be taken into consideration in order to assess the level of competition and identify whether the activity of such a body is industrial or commercial is the market for which the body was founded, 39 which, in the case of Fernwärme Wien, is the supply of district heating by means of waste combustion.
Za „osebe javnega prava“ se zahteva, da so ustanovljene za poseben namen zadovoljevanja potreb splo�nega interesa, ki nima industrijske ali tržne narave, tako da je trg, ki se upo�teva za presojo ravni konkurence in za ugotovitev, ali njihova dejavnost nima industrijske ali tržne narave, tisti, za katerega so bile ustanovljene 39, kar je v primeru Fernwärme Wien zagotavljanje toplovodnega ogrevanja mesta s sežiganjem odpadkov.
Directive 2004/18 leaves no alternative, since, just as the State and regional or local authorities continue to be classified as contracting authorities when they award
Direktiva 2004/18 ne dopu�ča druge izbire, kajti tako kot država in lokalni organi pri oddaji naročil v javnih sektorjih ne izgubijo lastnosti naročnika, je ne izgubijo niti subjekti, ki jih ti regionalni ali lokalni organi
40 — Judgments in Case C-353/96 Commission v Ireland [1998] ECR I-8565, paragraph 36; BFI Holding, paragraph 62; Commission v France, paragraph 43; Case C-214/00 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-4667, paragraph 53; and Commission v Spain (C-283/00), paragraph 73.
40 – Sodbe z dne 17. decembra 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski (C-353/96, Recueil, str. I-8565, točka 36), BFI Holding, točka 62, in v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, točka 43; z dne 15. maja 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-214/00, Recueil, str.
39 — In BFI Holding, the Court noted that the absence of an industrial or commercial character is a criterion intended to clarify the meaning of the term ‘needs in the general interest’ (paragraph 32).
I-4667, točka 53) in z dne 16. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-283/00, točka 73).
41 — In that case the Court held that the activities pursued by a body should be taken into account to establish whether the body was established to meet needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character (paragraph 56).
41 – V tej tožbi se predlaga, da se pregledajo dejavnosti, ki jih subjekt opravlja, s čimer se preveri, ali je bila ustanovljena za zadovoljevanje potreb splo�nega interesa, industrijske ali tržne narave (točka 56).
AIGNER information set out in the order for reference, regardless of which sector is delimited (district heating alone or heating produced by means of other fuel as well), Fernwärme Wien is currently the only undertaking capable of meeting that need in the general interest, being able to act in line with criteria other than strictly economic, a situation which justifies the intervention of Community law in order to harmonise the award criteria, open up the market to competition, and guarantee its transparency.
AIGNER predhodno odločanje, brez pomena, ker se glede na podatke iz predložitvene odločbe, ne glede na to, kako se sektor omeji (le toplovodno ogrevanje mesta ali tudi ogrevanje z drugimi gorivi), izkaže, da je Fernwärme Wien trenutno edino podjetje, ki lahko zadovolji tak�no potrebo splo�nega interesa, in zato ni nujno, da deluje po strogo gospodarskih kriterijih, saj ta položaj upravičuje posredovanje prava Skupnosti, da se uskladijo merila za dodelitev javnega naročila, da se trg odpre konkurenci in da se zagotovi njegova transparentnost.
contracts in open sectors, so do the structures which those regional or local authorities establish with legal personality and under their control for the purposes of ‘meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.’
ustanovijo s pravno osebo in pod svojim nadzorom, da „zadovoljijo […] potrebe splo�nega interesa, ki nimajo industrijske ali tržne narave“.
That interpretation is redolent of aspects of the caselaw of the Court.
Ta razlaga povzema usmeritve sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
In Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others, the Court noted that the condition that the body must have been established for the specific purpose of meeting such needs does not mean that it may meet only such needs (paragraph 26) and may not engage in other activities, even when such tasks constitute the greater part of its activity, because the legal definition does not take into account the relative importance of such tasks within its overall business (paragraphs 25, 26 and 31). 42
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi se poudarja, da pogoj, da mora biti organ ustanovljen „izrecno“ za zadovoljevanje teh potreb, ne pomeni, da mora zadovoljevati edino tak�ne potrebe (točka 26) in da ne sme opravljati nobene druge dejavnosti, niti tiste, ki je prevladujoča, ker pravna definicija ne upo�teva relativnega pomena te vrste dejavnosti za celotni obseg dejavnosti (točke 25, 26 in 31) 42.
C — Whether there has been an infringement of the infection theory (third question)
C – Možen zlom (tretje vprašanje)
In the light of those considerations, I propose that the Court should inform the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien that the supply of district heating is the market which it must examine for the purposes of determining whether Fernwärme Wien is to be classified as ‘a body governed by public law’, within the meaning of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18.
Glede na ta opažanja predlagam Sodi�ču, da Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien odgovori, da je treba za odločitev o tem, ali se Fernwärme Wien lahko opredeli kot „osebo javnega prava“ v smislu člena 1(9) Direktive 2004/18, pregledati trg za toplovodno ogrevanje mesta.
In any event, the examination to which the second question relates appears to be immaterial because, in the light of the
Vsekakor pa se zdi, da je preverjanje, ki se predlaga v drugem vpra�anju za
42 — For similar reasoning see the judgments in BFI Holding (paragraphs 55 and 56), Adolf Truley (paragraph 56) and Korhonen and Others (paragraph 58).
42 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe v zadevah BFI Holding (točki 55 in 56), Adolf Truley (točka 56) in Korhonen in drugi (točka 58).
The Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien does not seek to ascertain the importance of the level of competition in the market concerned in order to establish whether the public procurement directives apply, which is the subjectmatter of the second question.
Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien za opredelitev ustreznosti direktiv o javnih naročilih ne želi ugotavljati pomena ravni konkurence na zadevnem trgu, saj je ta točka predmet drugega vpra�anja.
More simply, the referring court asks whether a contracting entity or a contracting authority which carries out in parallel industrial or commercial activities in an open market, is, with regard to the those activities, subject to the 2004 directives if, by using mechanisms such as separate balance sheets and accounts,
Enostavneje povedano, Vergabekontrollsenat spra�uje, ali je „naročnik“, ki obenem opravlja gospodarske in negospodarske dejavnosti na odprtem trgu, glede teh dejavnosti podvržen direktivam iz leta 2004, če se s preventivnimi ukrepi, kot so ločeni bilančni in računovodski
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-393/06 it eliminates the risk of crossfinancing between the different spheres of its business activity.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-393/06 izkazi, izključi nevarnost navzkrižnega financiranja različnih področij njegovih gospodarskih dejavnosti.
temptation to follow other guidelines which give preference to national tenderers to the detriment of foreign ones, so ‘contracting authorities’ which, by definition, are capable of avoiding market forces, must in all cases comply with Directive 2004/18.
naročil, ki so predstavljeni v točki 31 teh sklepnih predlogov. Cilj je, da se tisti, ki so pristojni za oddajo javnih naročil, ravnajo po gospodarskih kriterijih, ne da bi pri tem pri�li v sku�njavo, da bi sledili drugim pravilom, po katerih imajo prednost nacionalni ponudniki pred tujimi, tako da morajo „naročniki“, ki so po definiciji nagnjeni k temu, da se izmikajo silam trga, vedno upo�tevati Direktivo 2004/18.
In its definition of a public contract, that directive does not require the contract to be related to the contracting authority’s task of meeting needs in the general interest (Article 1(2), in conjunction with Annexes I and II).
Ta direktiva za opredelitev naročila kot javnega ne določa, da mora obstajati povezava med naročilom in funkcijo „naročnika“, da zadovoljuje potrebe splo�nega interesa (člen 1(2), v povezavi z aneksoma I in II).
The Court previously put forward that reasoning in the judgment in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others (paragraph 32) in connection with Directive 93/37.
V zadevi Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi (točka 32) je bilo tak�no razmi�ljanje razloženo že v zvezi z Direktivo 93/37.
The question is without pertinence so far as Directive 2004/17 is concerned, for, as I have indicated, contracting entities are governed by its provisions only when they carry out activities in the material sectors which form the subjectmatter of the directive, unless those activities are pursued in conditions of free competition, in which case, pursuant to Article 30(1), the harmonising provisions of the directive do not apply.
Kar zadeva Direktivo 2004/17, je vpra�anje brez pomena, ker, kot sem že navedel, njene določbe „naročnike“ zavezujejo le, če ti opravljajo dejavnosti v sektorjih, ki so dejansko predmet direktive; če pa je dejavnost podvržena prosti konkurenci, se usklajevalna določila Direktive, kot je poudarjeno v členu 30(1), ne uporabijo.
As the Court pointed out in paragraph 34 of that judgment, the infection theory is also based on the principle of legal certainty, in accordance with which the definition of a body governed by public law must not take into account the specific proportion of the industrial or commercial activities concerned.
Ta teorija temelji, kot je poudarjeno v točki 34 zgoraj navedene zadeve, tudi na načelu pravne varnosti, po katerem se priporoča, da se pojem „oseba javnega prava“ presoja ločeno od vsakokratne teže industrijskih ali tržnih dejavnosti.
The analysis is restricted, therefore, to establishing whether contracting authorities, in particular bodies governed by public law, which carry on activity in both competitive and closed markets, must comply with Directive 2004/18 when they award contracts in open markets in the circumstances set out in the third question (absence of cross-financing).
Naloga se torej omejuje na ugotavljanje, ali se morajo „naročniki“, med drugim „osebe javnega prava“, ki delujejo tako na konkurenčnih kot na zaprtih trgih, ravnati po Direktivi 2004/18, ko oddajajo naročila na trgih, odprtih za konkurenco, in v okoli�činah, na katere se sklicuje tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje (neobstoj navzkrižnega financiranja).
In the Opinion in Impresa Portuale di Cagliari (paragraph 68), Advocate General Jacobs suggests an exception for cases where it may be demonstrated that there is complete economic, financial and accounting
V sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Impresa Portuale di Cagliari (točka 68) predlaga generalni pravobranilec Jacobs, da se upo�teva izjema v tistih primerih, ko se lahko dokaže, da so različne vrste dejavnosti „osebe
AIGNER separation between the different types of activity of a body governed by public law.
AIGNER javnega prava“ gospodarsko, finančno in računovodsko ločene.
I see no problem in accepting his suggestion in theory; 43the prudence which must
Teoretično ne vidim nobenih zadržkov za upo�tevanje tega priporočila 43; previ-