natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 — Those provisions have not been repealed in the meantime.10 — See point 15 above.
9 — Te določbe medtem �e niso bile razveljavljene.10 — Glej zgoraj točko 15.
On the basis of the calculation method defined in its Communication 96/C 242/07
Komisija na podlagi načina izračuna, ki ga opredeljujeta Obvestilo 96/C 242/07
The penalty should be imposed from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date the judgment in Case C-275/03 is complied with.
Kazen naj bi bilo treba naložiti za obdobje od datuma izdaje sodbe v obravnavani zadevi do datuma njene izvr�itve.
In relation to the duration of the infringement, the Commission submits that on 12 October 2005, the date it decided to bring the present action, 11 months had elapsed since the judgment in Case C-275/03 was handed down.
Glede trajanja kr�itve Komisija zatrjuje, da je 12. oktobra 2005, torej na datum, ko se je odločila vložiti obravnavano tožbo, preteklo 11 mesecev od izdaje sodbe v zadevi C-275/03.
In conformity with its orientations adopted in March 2001, the Commission starts counting the duration of an infringement pursuant to Article 228 EC from the seventh month following the date of the judgment finding an infringement of Community law.
Komisija v skladu s smernicami, ki jih je sprejela marca 2001, začetek trajanja kr�itve na podlagi člena 228 ES računa od sedmega meseca, ki sledi datumu sodbe, s katero je bila ugotovljena kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
In the present case, the multiplication of the ‘coefficient 0.1 by 5 months (November 2004 to May 2005) leads to the result 0.5’.
V obravnavanem primeru zmnožek „koeficienta 0,1 in 5 mesecev (od novembra 2004 do maja 2005) zna�a 0,5“.
The duration coefficient should therefore be 1, or the minimum coefficient.
Koeficient trajanja bi zato moral biti 1 oziroma najnižji koeficient.
The Commission considers that a penalty payment is the most appropriate means of bringing to an end as soon as possible the established infringement.
Komisija meni, da je denarna kazen najprimernej�e sredstvo za čim hitrej�o odpravo ugotovljene kr�itve.
A penalty payment of EUR 21 450 for each day of delay is commensurate with the seriousness and length of the infringement, due regard being had to the need to ensure that the sanction is effective.
Denarna kazen 21.450 EUR za vsak dan zamude naj bi bila sorazmerna resnosti in dolžini kr�itve ob upo�tevanju potrebe po tem, da se zagotovi učinkovitost sankcije.
According to the Commission, that sum should to be calculated by multiplying a uniform base of EUR 500 by a coefficient of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 20) for the seriousness of the infringement, a coefficient of 1 for the duration of the infringement and a coefficient of 3.9 (based on Portugal’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the weighting of its votes in the Council), which reflects Portugal’s ability to pay.
Po mnenju Komisije bi bilo treba to vsoto izračunati tako, da se enotna osnova 500 EUR pomnoži s koeficientom 11 (na lestvici od 1 do 20) za resnost kr�itve, s koeficientom 1 za trajanje kr�itve in s koeficientom 3,9 (ki temelji na portugalskem bruto domačem proizvodu (BDP) in na ponderaciji glasov Portugalske v Svetu), ki odraža plačilno sposobnost Portugalske.
As regards the seriousness of the infringement, the Commission considers that two factors should be taken into account when fixing the amount of the financial penalty, namely the importance of the Community rules breached and the impact of the infringement on general and particular interests.
Glede resnosti kr�itve Komisija meni, da bi bilo treba pri določitvi zneska denarne sankcije upo�tevati dva dejavnika, namreč pomembnost kr�enih pravil Skupnosti in vpliv kr�itve na splo�ne in posebne interese.
Pursuant to the third recital of Directive 89/665, ‘the openingup of public procurement to Community competition necessitates a substantial increase in the guarantees of transparency and nondiscrimination’.
V skladu s tretjo uvodno izjavo Direktive 89/665 „je za odpiranje javnih naročil za konkurenco v Skupnosti treba znatno povečati jamstva za preglednost in prepoved razlikovanja“.
In order ‘for that openingup to have tangible effects, effective and rapid remedies must be available in the case of infringements of Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law’.
Za „vidne učinke [morajo biti] na voljo učinkovita in hitra pravna sredstva pri kr�itvah zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalnih predpisov za izvajanje te zakonodaje“.
The Commission considers that the rules which were infringed are of great importance and that the impact
Komisija meni, da so pravila, ki so bila kr�ena, zelo pomembna in da bi lahko bil vpliv kr�itve na splo�ne in posamične
The Commission also considers that the circumstances in Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain, 16 where the Court held that the termination of the infringement in that case could only be ascertained annually, are materially different to those in the present case, which concerns the adoption of measures to transpose correctly into national law a provision of Directive 89/665.
Dalje meni, da so okoli�čine v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-278/01,16 v kateri je Sodi�če menilo, da je treba odpravo kr�itve ugotavljati le v letih, bistveno drugačne od teh v obravnavanem primeru, ki se nana�a na sprejetje ukrepov za pravilen prenos določbe Direktive 89/665 v nacionalno pravo.
In that regard, in 2002 the public procurement sector represented 13.2% of Portugal’s GDP. 13 Without prejudice to the above and in the light, firstly, of the fact that the Court, for the first time in Case C-275/03, ruled on whether national rules which condition the grant of damages to persons injured by a breach of the Community rules on public procurement, or national rules transposing those rules, on the proof of fault or wilful misconduct are compatible with Articles 1(1) and 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665 and secondly, the infringement which led to the judgment in Case C-275/03 is, in the case of Portugal, an isolated case of incorrect transposition of a Community directive in the public procurement field, the Commission considers that the coefficient for seriousness to be applied in this case should be 11.
zgoraj navedeno in ob upo�tevanju, prvič, dejstva, da je Sodi�če v zadevi C-275/03 prvikrat odločilo o tem, ali so nacionalna pravila, ki določajo, da je za povrnitev �kode osebam, ki so bile o�kodovane zaradi kr�itve prava Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalnih predpisov, s katerimi je bilo to preneseno, treba dokazati naklep ali malomarnost, skladna s členoma 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direkti ve 89/665, ter, drugič, okoli�čine, da je kr�itev, ki je bila ugotovljena v zadevi C-275/03, glede Portugalske osamljen primer nepravilnega prenosa direktive Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil, Komisija meni, da bi bilo treba v tem primeru uporabiti koeficient resnosti 11.
The Commission indicated in its reply that, contrary to Portugal’s arguments, 14 paragraph 13.3 of the 2005 Communication from the Commission — Application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty 15(hereinafter the ‘2005 Communication’), which provides
Dalje Komisija meni – ponovno drugače kot Portugalska17 –, da v obravnavanem
Moreover, the Commission considers, again contrary to the submissions of Portugal, 17that there is no need to suspend the imposition of a penalty in the present case in accordance with paragraph 13.4 of the 2005 Communication.
Komisija je v repliki navedla, da se – v nasprotju s trditvami Portugalske14 – točka 13.3 Obvestila Komisije iz leta 2005 – Uporaba člena 228 Pogodbe ES15(v nadaljevanju: Obvestilo iz leta 2005), ki določa možnost prilagoditve referenčnega časovnega okvira za oceno nadaljevane neiz- primeru v skladu s točko 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005 naložitve kazni ni treba zadržati.
Paragraph 13.4 of the 2005 Communication provides for the suspension of a penalty where, for example, a period of time is necessary in order to verify whether all the necessary measures have been taken to comply with a judgment.
Člen 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005 namreč določa zadržanje naložitve kazni, ko je na primer potrebno določeno obdobje za preskus, ali so bili sprejeti vsi ukrepi, potrebni za izvr�itev sodbe.
As the present case concerns the transposition of a directive, the Commission can immediately, upon notification of the national transposition measures, take note of such measures.
Ker se obravnavani primer nana�a na prenos direktive, se lahko Komisija z nacionalnimi ukrepi za prenos seznani neposredno po tem, ko so ji sporočeni.
13 — Which is slightly below the Community average of 16%.14 — See point 33 below.15 — SEC(2005) 1658.
13 — Kar je nekoliko pod povprečjem Skupnosti, ki zna�a 16 %.14 — Glej spodaj točko 33.15 — SEC(2005) 1658.
Portugal claims that this should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
Portugalska zatrjuje, da bi bilo to treba upo�tevati kot olaj�evalno okoli�čino.
In addition, the present case, contrary to other cases decided by the Court where lower coefficients for seriousness were proposed by the Commission, does not concern fundamental interests such as public health or the bodily integrity of individuals.
Poleg tega naj se obravnavani primer – v nasprotju z drugimi, o katerih je določalo Sodi�če in v katerih je Komisija predlagala nižje koeficiente za resnost – ne bi nana�al na temeljne interese, kot sta javno zdravje ali telesna integriteta posameznikov.
Furthermore, the present case does not concern a sensitive matter which is the exclusive competence of the Community and which has been extensively legislated and examined in Community case-law.
Dalje, obravnavani primer naj se ne bi nana�al na občutljivo področje, ki bi bilo v izključni pristojnosti Skupnosti in ki bi ga pravo Skupnosti temeljito urejalo, sodna praksa Skupnosti pa temeljito razčlenila.
Portugal considers that it is therefore surprising that the Commission proposes a coefficient of 11 for seriousness in a case relating to partial failure to transpose Directive 89/665.
Portugalska meni, da je zato presenetljivo, da Komisija predlaga koeficient 11 za resnost v zadevi, ki se nana�a na delni neprenos Direktive 89/665.
Portugal therefore considers that the coefficient for seriousness in this case should not exceed 4.
Zato meni, da koeficient resnosti v tem primeru ne bi smel biti vi�ji od 4.
Portugal considers that the amount of the penalty payment proposed by the Commission, and in particular the coefficient of 11 for seriousness, is manifestly disproportionate and excessive in the light of the circumstances of the present case.
Portugalska meni, da je znesek denarne kazni, ki ga je predlagala Komisija, zlasti pa koeficient 11 za resnost, ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin obravnavanega primera očitno nesorazmeren in pretiran.
According to the Portuguese Government, the imposition of civil liability on the Administration would appear, within the framework of Directive 89/665, to be an instrument of public procurement policy.
Po mnenju portugalske vlade naj bi bila civilna odgovornost uprave v okviru Direktive 89/665 instrument politike javnih naročil.
However, that instrument should not be considered to be of overriding importance with regard to that policy.
Vendar pa naj se ta instrument ne bi smel obravnavati, kot da je na področju te politike najpomembnej�i.
The objective of public procurement policy is primarily to guarantee the legality of the procedures for the award of public tenders.
Cilj politike javnih naročil naj bi bilo prvenstveno zagotavljati zakonitost postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil.
The possibility to impose liability on the Administration should be considered as a secondary instrument to safeguard the interests of victims.
Možnost, da je uprava civilno odgovorna, naj bi bilo treba obravnavati, kot da je drugotni instrument za varstvo interesov o�kodovancev.
Moreover, Portugal considers that it is doubtful whether the infringement has had any impact on general and individual interests as the Portuguese courts have recognised, in their settled caselaw, that there is a presumption of fault in relation to the illegal acts of the Administration, thereby facilitating the grant of damages to injured individuals in perfect conformity with the requirements of Directive 89/665.
Dalje Portugalska meni, da je dvomljivo, ali je kr�itev sploh vplivala na splo�ne in posamične interese, saj so portugalska sodi�ča v ustaljeni praksi potrdila, da se pri nezakonitem ravnanju uprave krivda domneva, s čimer je bila prizadetim posameznikom olaj�ana povrnitev �kode, kar je v popolni skladnosti z zahtevami Direk -tive 89/665.
Moreover, Portugal considers, in accordance with paragraph 13.3 of the 2005 Communication which replaced Communications 96/C 242/07 and 97/C 63/02, that the appropriate reference time-frame in the present case for assessing compliance with Directive 89/665 should be annual and not daily as proposed by the Commission.
Dalje Portugalska v skladu s toč ko 13.3 Obvestila iz leta 2005, s katerim sta bili nadome�čeni obvestili 96/C 242/07 in 97/C 63/02, meni, da bi moral biti v obravnavanem primeru za presojo uskladitve z Direktivo 89/665 ustrezen referenčni časovni okvir letni, ne pa dnevni, kot je to predlagala Komisija.
Portugal claims that the present case is not similar to other cases which were decided by the Court pursuant to Article 228 EC as the present case does not concern the incorrect application of Community law but rather the alleged incorrect transposition of a
Portugalska zatrjuje, da obravnavani primer ni podoben drugim, o katerih je Sodi�če odločalo na podlagi člena 228 ES, saj se obravnavani primer ne nana�a na nepravilno uporabo prava Skupnosti, temveč na domnevno nepravilen prenos direktive.
In addition, Portugal considers that in accordance with paragraph 13.4 of the 2005 Communication, the penalty in the present case should be suspended.
Poleg tega Portugalska meni, da bi bilo treba v skladu s točko 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005 naložitev kazni v obravnavanem primeru zadržati.
By its adoption of
S sprejetjem predlaganega
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL proposed Law No 56/X, Portugal has ensured that all the necessary steps to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-275/03 have been taken.
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI zakona 56/X naj bi namreč zagotovila, da so bili izvedeni vsi koraki, potrebni za izvr�itev sodbe Sodi�ča C-275/03.
It is merely necessary that a certain time period elapses for the text of the law to be adopted.
Potrebno je le, da preteče �e nekaj časa, da bo zakonsko besedilo sprejeto.
that is appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach that has been found and to the ability to pay of the Member State concerned. In that regard, the Commission’s proposals with regard to financial penalties do not bind the Court and merely constitute a useful point of reference.
tisto, ki mora določiti pav�alni znesek in/ali denarno kazen, ki ustreza okoli�činam in je sorazmerna tako glede na ugotovljeno kr�itev kot glede na plačilno sposobnost zadevne države članice.
20Moreover, the Commission’s communications in relation to Article 228 EC are not binding on the Court but serve to ensure the transparency, predictability and legal certainty of that institution’s actions. 21
V tem pogledu predlog Komisije glede denarne sankcije ne zavezuje Sodi�ča in je zgolj koristna oporna točka.20Dalje, obvestila Komisije glede čle -na 228 ES za Sodi�če niso zavezujoča, temveč so namenjena zagotavljanju preglednosti, predvidljivosti in pravne varnosti v zvezi z ravnanjem te institucije.21
In the event that the Court should find that the Portuguese Republic has not complied with its judgment in Case C-275/03, the Court may, under the third subparagraph of Article 228(2) EC, impose on that Member State a lump sum and/or penalty payment. 18
Če bi Sodi�če menilo, da Portugalska republika ni izvr�ila sodbe v zadevi C-275/03, lahko na podlagi tretjega pododstavka člena 228(2) ES državi članici naloži plačilo pav�alnega zneska ali denarne kazni.18
In the present case, the Commission in its application based its proposal on the financial penalties to be imposed on Portugal, inter alia, on its Communications 96/C 242/07 and 97/C 63/02.
V obravnavanem primeru je Komisija v tožbi svoj predlog glede denarne sankcije, ki bi jo bilo treba naložiti Portugalski, med drugim oprla na obvestili 96/C 242/07 in 97/C 63/02.
It should be noted that on 7 February 2006, the date when the application in the current proceedings was lodged before the Court, those communications were no longer in force and had been replaced by the 2005 Communication with effect from 1 January 2006. 22
Treba je navesti, da 7. februarja 2006, ki je dan, ko je bila pri Sodi�ču vložena tožba v obravnavani zadevi, ti obvestili nista več veljali in da ju je zamenjalo Obvestilo iz leta 2005, ki se je pričelo uporabljati 1. januarja 2006.22
I consider that in the context of the present proceedings it would be appropriate for the Court to use, inter alia, the more
Menim, da bi bilo v okviru obravnavanega postopka primerno, če bi Sodi�če
19 The fixing of a sanction pursuant to Article 228 EC thus lies within the exclusive remit of the Court.
Določitev sankcije na podlagi člena 228 ES je zato v izključni pristojnosti Sodi�ča.
In exercising its discretion, it is for the Court to fix the lump sum and/or penalty payment
Pri izvr�evanju diskrecijske pravice je Sodi�če
20 — See Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-5047, paragraph 89.
20 — Glej sodbo z dne 4. julija 2000 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji, C-387/97, Recueil, str. I-5047, točka 89.
18 — See Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263, in particular paragraphs 80 to 82.
18 — Glej sodbo z dne 12. julija 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-304/02, ZOdl., str. I-6263, zlasti točke od 80 do 82.
21 — See Commission v Greece, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 87.22 — See paragraph 25 of the 2005 Communication.
21 — Glej v opombi 20 navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 87.
19 — Commission v France, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 86.
19 — V opombi 18 navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji, točka 86.
recent 2005 Communication, together with the submissions of the parties, as a useful point of reference for establishing whether a financial sanction should be imposed in the present case, and if so, the amount of that sanction.
med drugim uporabilo poznej�e Obvestilo iz leta 2005 skupaj z navedbami strank kot koristno oporno točko za ugotovitev, ali bi bilo v obravnavanem primeru treba naložiti denarno sankcijo, in – če da – za določitev zneska te sankcije.
In reaching this finding, I consider that the reference by the Commission to its earlier communications did not hinder Portugal in defending its interests in the course of the current proceedings and that the principles of transparency, predictability and legal certainty have been observed.
Menim, da Portugalska s tem, da se je Komisija pri odločanju o tem sklicevala na prej�nje obvestilo, med tem postopkom ni bila ovirana pri obrambi svojih interesov in da so se spo�tovala načela preglednosti, predvidljivosti in pravne varnosti.
Portugal itself, in its written pleadings, highlighted the fact that the 2005 Communication had replaced the Commission’s earlier communications and indeed, as can be seen from Portugal’s pleadings, that Member State specifically relied on paragraphs 13.3 and 13.4 of the 2005 Communication.
Portugalska sama je v pisnih vlogah poudarila dejstvo, da je Obvestilo iz leta 2005 nadomestilo prej�nje obvestilo Komisije in da se je – kot izhaja iz vlog Portugalske – ta država članica posebej oprla na točki 13.3 in 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005.
In my opinion, Portugal was fully aware of the contents of the 2005 Communication and that it could be used as a point of reference in relation to the imposition of financial sanctions by the Court.
Menim, da se je Portugalska popolnoma zavedala vsebine Obvestila iz leta 2005 in da bi ga Sodi�če lahko uporabilo kot oporno točko v zvezi z naložitvijo denarne sankcije.
In concrete terms, the procedure laid down in Article 228(2) EC is aimed at inducing a defaulting Member State to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to fulfil obligations, thereby ensuring that Community law is in fact applied by that State.
Natančneje, cilj postopka iz člena 228(2) ES je spodbuditi državo članico zamudnico k izvr�itvi sodbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti in s tem zagotoviti, da ta država učinkovito uporablja pravo Skupnosti.
The sanctions provided for by that provision, namely a lump sum and a penalty payment, are both intended to achieve this objective.
Sankciji, predvideni s to določbo, namreč pav�alni znesek in denarna kazen, sledita temu cilju.
The purpose of imposing a penalty payment and/or a lump sum is to place a Member State under economic pressure which induces it to put an end to the infringement that has been established.
Namen naložitve denarne kazni in/ali pav�alnega zneska je, da se nad državo članico izvaja ekonomski pritisk, ki jo spodbudi, da odpravi ugotovljeno neizpolnitev obveznosti.
The financial penalties imposed must therefore be decided on according to the degree of persuasion needed for the Member State in question to alter its conduct. 23
Naložene denarne sankcije morajo biti torej določene glede na stopnjo potrebne spodbude, da zadevna država članica spremeni ravnanje.23
In Case C-304/02 Commission v France, the Court stated that while the imposition of a penalty payment seems particularly suited to inducing a Member State to put an end as soon as possible to a breach of obligations which, in the absence of such a measure, would tend to persist, the imposition of a lump sum is based more on assessment of
V zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-304/02, je Sodi�če navedlo, da je naložitev denarne kazni zlasti primerna kot spodbuda državi članici, da čim hitreje preneha kr�itev obveznosti, ki bi se sicer brez takega ukrepa �e nadaljevala, medtem ko naložitev
In my view, in order to apply the enforcement procedure provided by Article 228 EC in a consequent manner, that procedure must be understood as a tool for fully realising the objective of Article 226 EC proceedings, which is to bring infringements of Community law to an end, and at the same time as a means of dissuading Member States from failing to comply with the judgments of
Menim, da je za dosledno izvedbo izvr�ilnega postopka, ki ga določa člen 228 ES, ta postopek treba razumeti kot orodje za popolno uresničenje cilja postopka iz člena 226 ES, ta pa je doseči odpravo kr�itve prava Skupnosti, in hkrati kot sredstvo, da se državo članico odvrne od tega, da ne bi izvr�ila sodbe Sodi�ča, s katero
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL the effects on public and private interests of the failure of the Member State concerned to comply with its obligations, in particular where the breach has persisted for a long period since the judgment which initially established it. 24
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI pav�alnega zneska bolj temelji na presoji učinkov neizvr�itve obveznosti s strani zadevne države članice na javne in zasebne interese, zlasti ko kr�itev traja �e dolgo po izdaji sodbe, s katero je bila ugotovljena.24
As regards the amount of the penalty payment, the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that such payments have coercive force and Community law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State to pay.
Glede zneska denarne kazni so osnovna merila, ki jih je treba upo�tevati za zagotovitev, da ima taka kazen prisilni učinek in da se pravo Skupnosti uporablja enotno in učinkovito, načeloma trajanje kr�itve, stopnja njene resnosti in plačilna sposobnost države članice.
In applying those criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure to comply on private and public interests and to the urgency of getting the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations. 25
Ob uporabi teh meril je treba zlasti upo�tevati učinke neizvr�itve na zasebne in javne interese ter potrebo po tem, da se zadevna država članica spodbudi k izpolniti obveznosti.25