natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Lianakis and Planitiki consortia took the view that the Loukatos consortium could only have been awarded the project as a result of the Project Award Committee’s subsequent stipulation of the weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract notice, and challenged the decision taken by the Municipal Council of Alexandroupolis, initially before the Council itself and subsequently before the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greek Council of State; ‘Simvoulio tis Epikratias’) on the basis, in particular, of allegations of infringement of Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50.
Ker sta konzorcija Lianakis in Planitiki menila, da je bil konzorcij Loukatos izbran le zato, ker je komisija za oddajo javnega naročila naknadno določila ponderirane koeficiente in podmerila k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v obvestilu o naročilu, sta izpodbijala odločbo, ki jo je sprejel občinski svet občine Alexandroupolis, in sicer najprej pri istem svetu, nato pa pri Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (gr�ki državni svet), zlasti na podlagi kr�itve člena 36(2) Direktive 92/50.
In those circumstances, the Simvoulio tis Epikratias decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Symvoulio tis Epikrateias prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘If the contract notice for the award of a contract for services makes provision only for the order of priority of the award criteria, without stipulating the weighting factors
„Ali člen 36 Direktive Sveta 92/50/EGS o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev v primeru, da obvestilo o naročilu za oddajo naročila storitev določa
LIANAKIS AND OTHERS for each criterion, does Article 36 of Directive 92/50 allow criteria to be weighted by the evaluation committee at a later date and, if so, under what conditions?’
LIANAKIS IN DRUGI le prednostni vrstni red meril za oddajo, ne da bi bili za vsako merilo določeni ponderirani koeficienti, komisiji za oddajo javnega naročila dopu�ča, da naknadno določi ponderirane koeficiente za merila, in v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora, pod kak�nimi pogoji?“
By its question, the referring court asks in essence whether, in a tendering procedure, Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 precludes the contracting authority 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.
Z vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 36(2) Direktive 92/50 nasprotuje temu, da naročnik v okviru postopka oddaje naročila naknadno določi ponderirane koeficiente in podmerila k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v razpisni dokumentaciji ali obvestilu o naročilu.
The Commission submitted in its written observations that, before replying to the question referred, it is necessary to consider whether, in a tendering procedure, Directive 92/50 precludes the contracting authority from taking into account as ‘award criteria’ rather than as ‘qualitative selection criteria’ the tenderers’ experience, manpower and equipment, or their ability to perform the contract by the anticipated deadline.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v pisnih stali�čih navaja, da je treba pred odgovorom na zastavljeno vpra�anje preveriti, ali Direktiva 92/50 nasprotuje temu, da naročnik v okviru postopka za oddajo javnega naročila izku�enj ponudnikov, �tevila zaposlenih in opremljenosti ter sposobnost, da naročilo opravijo v predvidenem trenutku, ne upo�teva kot „meril za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti“, temveč kot „merila za oddajo“.
In that regard, even if — formally — the national court has limited its question to the interpretation of Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 in relation to a possible later change to the award criteria, that does not prevent the Court from providing the national court with all the elements of interpretation of Community law which may enable it to rule on the case before it, whether or not reference is made thereto in the question referred (see Case C-392/05 Alevizos [2007] ECR I-3505, paragraph 64 and the caselaw cited).
Treba je navesti, da Sodi�ča, čeprav je predložitveno sodi�če svoje vpra�anje formalno omejilo na razlago člena 36(2) Direktive 92/50 z vidika morebitne naknadne spremembe meril za oddajo, to ne ovira pri tem, da predložitvenemu sodi�ču sporoči vse vidike razlage prava Skupnosti, ki bi mu lahko koristili pri presoji predložene zadeve, in sicer ne glede na to, ali se je nanje sklicevalo v predstavitvi svojega vpra�anja ali ne (glej sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Alevizos, C-392/05, ZOdl., str. I-3505, točka 64 in navedena sodna praksa).
Accordingly, it is necessary, first of all, to establish the lawfulness of the criteria chosen as ‘award criteria’, before considering whether it is possible for the weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice to be set at a later date.
Zato je treba najprej preveriti upravičenost meril, ki so se uporabila kot „merila za oddajo“, in nato preveriti možnost naknadne določitve ponderiranih koeficientov in podmeril k merilom za oddajo, določenih v obvestilu o naročilu.
Criteria chosen as ‘award criteria’ (Articles 23 and 36(1) of Directive 92/50)
Merila, ki se lahko uporabijo kot „merila za oddajo“ (člena 23 in 36(1) Direktive 92/50)
It must be borne in mind that Article 23(1) of Directive 92/50 provides that a contract is to be awarded on the basis of the criteria laid down in Articles 36 and 37 of the Directive, 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.
Glede tega naj opozorimo, da je v členu 23(1) Direktive 92/50 določeno, da se naročila oddajo na podlagi meril iz 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.
The caselaw shows that, while Directive 92/50 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 (see, to that effect, in relation to works contracts, Case 31/87 Beentjes [1988] ECR 4635, paragraphs 15 and 16).
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da sta preverjanje ustreznosti ponudnikov in oddaja naročila, čeprav Direktiva 92/50 teoretično ne izključuje možnosti, da bi potekala hkrati, različni operaciji, ki ju urejajo različna pravila (glej glede javnih naročil del v tem smislu sodbo z dne 20. septembra 1988 v zadevi Beentjes, 31/87, Recueil, str. 4635, točki 15 in 16).
The suitability of tenderers is to be checked by the authorities awarding contracts in accordance with the criteria of economic and financial standing and of technical capability (the ‘qualitative selection criteria’) referred to in Articles 31 and 32 of Directive 92/50 (see, as regards works contracts, Beentjes, paragraph 17).
Ustreznost ponudnikov namreč preverijo naročniki v skladu z merili glede gospodarskega in finančnega položaja ter tehničnih zmožnosti (imenovanimi „merila za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti“) iz členov 31 in 32 navedene direktive (glej glede javnih naročil del zgoraj navedeno sodbo Beentjes, točka 17).
By contrast, the award of contracts is based on the criteria set out in Article 36(1) of Directive 92/50, namely, the lowest price or the economically most advantageous tender (see, to that effect, in relation to works contracts, Beentjes, paragraph 18).
Nasprotno oddaja naročila temelji na merilih, na�tetih v členu 36(1) iste direktive, torej bodisi na najnižji ceni bodisi na ekonomsko najugodnej�i ponudbi (glej glede javnih naročil del v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Beentjes, točka 18).
Therefore, ‘award criteria’ do not include criteria that are not aimed at identifying the tender which is economically the most advantageous, but are instead essentially linked to the evaluation of the tenderers’ ability to perform the contract in question.
Zato so iz „meril za oddajo“ izključena tista, na podlagi katerih ni možno opredeliti ekonomsko najugodnej�e ponudbe, ki pa so bistveno povezana s presojo ustreznosti ponudnikov, ki naj bi izpolnili zadevno naročilo.
In the case in the main proceedings, however, the criteria selected as ‘award criteria’ by the contracting authority relate principally to the experience, qualifications and means of ensuring proper performance of the contract in question.
V postopku v glavni stvari pa se merila, ki jih je uporabil naročnik kot „merila za oddajo“, nana�ajo v glavnem na izku�nje, usposobljenost in sredstva, ki lahko zagotavljajo pravilno izvedbo zadevnega naročila.
Those are criteria which concern the tenderers’ suitability to perform the contract and which therefore do not have the status of ‘award criteria’ pursuant to Article 36(1) of Directive 92/50.
Gre za merila, ki se nana�ajo na ustreznost ponudnikov, ki naj bi izvedli to naročilo, in ki torej niso „merila za oddajo“ v smislu člena 36(1) Direktive 92/50.
Consequently, it must be held that, in a tendering procedure, a contracting authority is precluded by Articles 23(1), 32 and 36(1) of Directive 92/50 from taking into account as ‘award criteria’ rather than as ‘qualitative selection criteria’ the tenderers’ experience, manpower and equipment, or their ability to perform the contract by the anticipated deadline.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da členi 23(1), 32 in 36(1) Direktive 92/50 nasprotujejo temu, da naročnik v okviru postopka za oddajo naročila izku�enj ponudnikov, �tevila zaposlenih in opremljenosti ter sposobnosti, da naročilo opravijo v predvidenem trenutku, ne upo�teva kot „meril za ugotavljanje usposobljenosti“, temveč kot „merila za oddajo“.
Subsequent stipulation of weighting factors and sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria referred to in the contract documents or contract notice
Naknadna določitev ponderiranih koeficientov in podmeril k merilom za oddajo, navedenim v razpisni dokumentaciji ali obvestilu o naročilu
It must be borne in mind that Article 3(2) of Directive 92/50 requires contracting authorities to ensure that there is no discrimination between different service providers.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da je v členu 3(2) Direktive 92/50 določeno, da naročniki zagotovijo, da ni diskriminacije med različnimi ponudniki storitev.
The principle of equal treatment thus laid down also entails an obligation of transparency (see, to that effect, in relation to public supply contracts, Case C-275/98 Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S [1999] ECR I-8291, paragraph 31, and, in relation to public works contracts, SIAC Construction, paragraph 41).
Tako določeno načelo enakega obravnavanja vsebuje tudi zahtevo po preglednosti (glej v tem smislu glede javnih naročil del sodbo z dne 18. novembra 1999 v zadevi Unitron Scandinavia in 3-S, C-275/98, Recueil, str. I-8291, točka 31, ter glede javnih naročil del zgoraj navedeno sodbo SIAC Construction, točka 41).
Furthermore, it follows from Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 that where the contract has to be awarded to the economically most advantageous tender, the contracting authority must 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.
Poleg tega iz člena 36(2) Direktive 92/50 izhaja, da naročniki, če bo naročilo oddano gospodarsko najugodnej�emu ponudniku, navedejo 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.
Potential tenderers must be in a position to ascertain the existence and scope of those elements when preparing their tenders (see, to that effect, in relation to public service contracts, Concordia Bus Finland, paragraph 62, and ATI EAC and Others, paragraph 23).
Potencialnim ponudnikom mora biti namreč omogočeno, da se ob pripravi svojih ponudb seznanijo z obstojem in pomenom teh dejavnikov (glej glede javnih naročil storitev v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Concordia Bus Finland, točka 62, ter ATI EAC e Viaggi di Maio in drugi, točka 23).
Therefore, a contracting authority cannot apply weighting rules or sub-criteria in respect of the award criteria which it has not previously brought to the tenderers’ attention (see, by analogy, in relation to public works contracts, Universale-Bau and Others, paragraph 99).
Zato naročnik ne more uporabiti pravil o ponderaciji ali podmerilih k merilom za oddajo, če z njimi ni poprej seznanil ponudnikov (glej glede javnih naročil del po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Universale-Bau in drugi, točka 99).
That interpretation is supported by the purpose of Directive 92/50 which aims to eliminate barriers to the freedom to provide services and therefore to protect the interests of economic operators established in a Member State who wish to offer services to contracting authorities established in another Member State (see, in particular, Case C-380/98 University of Cambridge [2000] ECR I-8035, paragraph 16).
Ta razlaga je podkrepljena s ciljem Direktive 92/50 odpraviti ovire za prosti pretok storitev in torej z namenom varovati interese gospodarskih subjektov s sedežem v državi članici, ki nameravajo ponuditi storitve naročnikom v drugi državi članici (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 2000 v zadevi University of Cambridge, C-380/98, Recueil, str. I-8035, točka 16).
To that end, tenderers must be placed on an equal footing throughout the procedure, which means that the criteria and conditions governing each contract must be adequately publicised by the contracting authorities (see, to that effect, in relation to public works contracts, Beentjes, paragraph 21, and SIAC Construction, paragraphs 32 and 34; also, in relation to public service contracts, ATI EAC and Others, paragraph 22).
V ta namen morajo biti ponudniki v enakopravnem položaju skozi cel postopek, kar pomeni, da morajo naročniki merila in pogoje, ki urejajo vsako javno naročilo, ustrezno objaviti (glej glede javnih naročil del v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Beentjes, točka 21, in SIAC Construction, točka 34, ter glede javnih naročil storitev zgoraj navedeno sodbo ATI EAC e Viaggi di Maio in drugi, točka 22).
Contrary to the doubts expressed by the referring court, those findings do not conflict with the interpretation by the Court of Justice of Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 in ATI EAC and Others.
V nasprotju z dvomi, ki jih je izrazilo predložitveno sodi�če, pa te ugotovitve ne nasprotujejo razlagi člena 36(2) Direktive 92/50, kot jo je podalo Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi ATI EAC e Viaggi di Maio in drugi.
In the case that gave rise to that judgment, the award criteria and their weighting factors, together with the sub-criteria of those award criteria had in fact been established beforehand and published in the contract documents.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena ta sodba, so bila namreč v razpisni dokumentaciji predhodno določena in objavljena tako merila za oddajo in njihovi ponderirani koeficienti kot podmerila k tem merilom za oddajo.
The contracting authority concerned had merely stipulated subsequently, shortly before the opening of the envelopes, the weighting factors to be applied to the sub-criteria.
Vendar je zadevni naročnik ex post – malo pred odprtjem kuvert – določil ponderirane koeficiente za podmerila.
In that judgment, the Court held that Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 does not preclude proceeding in that way, provided that three very specific conditions apply, namely that the decision to do so:
Sodi�če je v tej sodbi odločilo, da člen 36(2) Direktive 92/50 takemu pristopu ne nasprotuje, če so izpolnjeni trije zelo natančni pogoji, in sicer če tak pristop:
— does not alter the criteria for the award of the contract set out in the contract documents;
— ne spreminja meril za oddajo javnega naročila, ki so določena v razpisni dokumentaciji ali v obvestilu o naročilu,
— does not contain elements which, if they had been known at the time the tenders were prepared, could have affected that preparation; and
— ne vsebuje dejavnikov, ki bi, če bi bili znani ob pripravi ponudb, lahko vplivali na to pripravo, in
— was not adopted on the basis of matters likely to give rise to discrimination against one of the tenderers (see, to that effect, ATI EAC and Others, paragraph 32).
— ni bil sprejet ob upo�tevanju dejavnikov, ki bi lahko diskriminatorno učinkovali na enega od ponudnikov (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo ATI EAC e Viaggi di Maio in drugi, točka 32).
It must be noted that in the case in the main proceedings, by contrast, the Project Award Committee referred only to the award criteria themselves in the contract notice, and later, after the submission of tenders and the opening of applications expressing interest, stipulated both the weighting factors and the sub-criteria to be applied to those award criteria.
Nasprotno pa je v zadevi v glavni stvari treba ugotoviti, da je komisija za oddajo javnega naročila v obvestilu o naročilu navedla le merila za oddajo, ex post – po predstavitvi ponudb in po odprtju zahtev za izkaz interesa – pa določila tako ponderirane koeficiente kot podmerila k merilom za oddajo.
Clearly that does not comply with the requirement laid down in Article 36(2) of Directive 92/50 to publicise such criteria, read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the obligation of transparency.
To očitno ne ustreza zahtevi po objavi, določeni v členu 36(2) Direktive 92/50, kot ga je treba razumeti ob upo�tevanju načela enakega obravnavanja gospodarskih subjektov in zahteve po preglednosti.
Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must therefore be that, 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 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.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je torej na zastavljeno vpra�anje treba odgovoriti, da člen 36(2) Direktive 92/50 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.
Read in the light of the principle of equal treatment of economic operators and the ensuing obligation of transparency, Article 36(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, 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 Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997, kot ga je treba razumeti ob upoštevanju 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.
Case C-275/06
Zadeva C-275/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 5 de Madrid)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 5 de Madrid)
(Information society — Obligations of providers of services — Retention and disclosure of certain traffic data — Obligation of disclosure — Limits — Protection of the confidentiality of electronic communications — Compatibility with the protection of copyright and related rights — Right to effective protection of intellectual property)
„Informacijska družba – Obveznosti ponudnikov storitev – Hranjenje in razkritje nekaterih podatkov o prometu – Obveznost razkritja – Omejitve – Varstvo zaupnosti elektronskih komunikacij – Skladnost z varstvom avtorske in sorodnih pravic – Pravica do učinkovitega varstva intelektualne lastnine“
Approximation of laws — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and relatedrights in the information society — Directive 2001/29 — Electronic commerce — Directive 2000/31 — Processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
Približevanje zakonodaj – Usklajevanje nekaterih vidikov avtorske in sorodnih pravic v informacijski družbi – Direktiva 2001/29 – Elektronsko poslovanje – Direktiva 2000/31 – Obdelava
SUMMARY — CASE C-275/06 communications sector — Directive 2002/58 — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48 — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-275/06 osebnih podatkov in varstvo zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij – Direktiva 2002/58 – Uveljavljanje pravic intelektualne lastnine – Direktiva 2004/48 – Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (TRIPS)
(TRIPs Agreement, Arts 41, 42 and 47; European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/31, 2001/29, 2002/58 and 2004/48) proceedings to be brought for infringement of copyright.
(Sporazum TRIPS, členi 41, 42 in 47; Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2000/31, 2001/29, 2002/58 in 2004/48) zank, da bi se omogočila izvedba civilnopravnega postopka zaradi kr�itev avtorskih pravic.
Similarly, as to Articles 41, 42 and 47 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), in the light of which Community law must as far as possible be interpreted where it regulates a field to which that agreement applies, while they require the effective protection of intellectual property rights and the institution of judicial remedies for their enforcement, they do not contain provisions which require those directives to be interpreted as compelling the Member States to lay down an obligation to communicate personal data in the context of civil proceedings.
Prav tako, če členi 41, 42 in 47 Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (Sporazum TRIPS), ob upo�tevanju katerih je treba razlagati, če je to mogoče, pravo Skupnosti, ki ureja področje, za katero se uporablja navedeni sporazum, zahtevajo učinkovito varstvo intelektualne lastnine in uvedbo pravice do sodnega varstva, da bi se ta lastnina spo�tovala, pa ne vsebujejo določb, na podlagi katerih bi bilo treba zgoraj navedene direktive razlagati tako, da države članice zavezujejo, naj določijo obveznost zagotovitve osebnih podatkov v okviru civilnega sodnega postopka.