natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
the objective of early termination of service concessions originally granted without any tendering procedure, nevertheless in the legislation at issue it provided for them to be maintained in force until the expiry of a transitional period which it defined.
odpovedi koncesij za storitve, ki so bile že na začetku podeljene brez javnega razpisa, pa se v sporni zakonodaji določa njihova ohranitev do konca prehodnega obdobja, ki ga določa.
Therefore, the effect of such legislative action is to restrict access to gas distribution for any potential operator from another Member State for the entire duration of the transitional period which it introduced.
Zato je posledica tak�nega normativnega posredovanja omejitev dostopa do dejavnosti distribucije plina vsakemu potencialnemu dobavitelju iz druge države članice med celotnim prehodnim obdobjem, ki ga uvaja.
Such legislation therefore constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services and/or that of establishment in not enabling potential operators established in other Member States to obtain access to those concessions.
Tak�na zakonodaja pomeni torej omejitev prostega opravljanja storitev in/ali ustanavljanja, ker potencialnim dobaviteljem iz drugih držav članic ne omogoča dostopa do navedenih koncesij.
However, that interpretation relates only to the decision to award and/or to renew a concession.
Navedena razlaga se zato nana�a le na odločbo o podelitvi in/ali obnovitvi koncesije.
The interpretation thus extracted by the Court applies not to concessions of services, as such, but to decisions to award or renew them, so that it could be argued that it would be wrong to extend that interpretation, previously formulated by the Court, in particular in Coname, to concessions originally granted without being put out to tender where they have not expired, so that there would be neither a decision to award nor a decision to renew on the part of the contracting authority.
Tako predmet razlage Sodi�ča niso koncesije za storitve kot take, ampak odločbe o podelitvi ali obnovitvi zadevnih koncesij, tako da mi je mogoče ugovarjati, da bi bilo predhodno razlago Sodi�ča, zlasti v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Coname, napačno raz�iriti na koncesije, ki so bile že na začetku podeljene brez javnega razpisa, medtem ko �e niso prenehale veljati, tako da naj ne bi obstajali niti odločba pristojnega organa o podelitvi niti odločba o obnovitvi.
However, in my opinion, the case in the main proceedings may be distinguished from that case, in that the Italian legislature acted and its action had the same effect as a decision to renew a concession.
Vendar se mi zdi, da se spor v glavni stvari razlikuje od tega primera, ker je posredoval italijanski zakonodajalec in njegovo posredovanje enako učinkuje kot odločba o obnovitvi koncesije.
Although the Italian legislature intended to pursue
Čeprav je imel italijanski zakonodajalec namen izpolnjevati cilj predhodne
19 — See, inter alia, Commission v Italy, paragraph 25.
19 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Italiji (točka 25).
That case concerned the renewal of concessions for the operation of betting on horse races which had occurred without a call for tenders.
V tem primeru gre za obnovitev koncesij za konjske stave brez javnega razpisa.
The Court held that such a renewal ‘precludes the openingup to competition of the licences and review of the impartiality of the procurement procedures’.
Sodi�če meni, da tak�na obnovitev „ovira odprtje zadevnih koncesij konkurenci in nadzor nad tem, ali so bili postopki oddaje opravljeni nepristransko“.
Furthermore, even if the Court did not agree with me on that point, in my view the classification as an obstacle should be maintained.
Poleg tega, tudi če se Sodi�če v tej točki ne strinja z menoj, je treba po mojem mnenju opredelitev ovire ohraniti.
The objective pursued by the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment entails, in any event, the openingup to competition of existing concessions originally granted in breach of the rules of the Treaty.
Vsekakor cilj prostega opravljanja storitev in svobodnega ustanavljanja vključuje odprtje konkurenci veljavnih koncesij, ki so bile na začetku podeljene ob kr�itvi pravil Pogodbe.
Such concessions, concluded generally for an extremely long period, maintain the traditional operators in a privileged position.
Tak�ne koncesije, po navadi sklenjene za izredno dolgo obdobje, ohranjajo privilegiran položaj uveljavljenih dobaviteljev.
They are an obstacle, above all, to any new entrant on the market.
Ovirajo predvsem vsakega novega ponudnika na trgu.
The potential operators from other Member States are thus prevented, for the entire duration of the concession granted in breach of Community law, from penetrating the relevant market.
Med celotnim trajanjem koncesije, ki je bila podeljena s kr�enjem prava Skupnosti, potencialni dobavitelji iz drugih držav članic torej ne morejo prodreti na upo�tevni trg.
They thus represent, by their nature, and by their intrinsic quality, a brake on access to the relevant market by protecting the positions acquired by national operators.
Tako koncesije po vsebinski naravi pomenijo oviro pri dostopu na upo�tevni trg, s tem da �čitijo pridobljene položaje nacionalnih dobaviteljev.
21Since it did not do so, the interpretation extracted by the Community judicature continues to have retroactive effect.
21Če tega ni, razlaga Sodi�ča Skupnosti ohranja retroaktivni učinek.
Such a restriction, even where there is no decision to award or to renew a concession which fails to comply with minimal puttingout to competition, is to be considered as being attributable to the Member State concerned.
Treba je �teti, da je za tak�no omejitev, čeprav brez odločbe o podelitvi ali obnovitvi koncesije, ki ne bi spo�tovala minimalne konkurence, odgovorna zadevna država članica.
It is for Member States to adopt the necessary measures to bring their national law into conformity with Community law.
Države članice so namreč tiste, ki morajo sprejeti ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev nacionalnega prava držav članic s pravom Skupnosti.
It follows both from Article 86(1) EC, where a public undertaking with exclusive or special rights is concerned, and from the second paragraph of Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, where the concession-holder does not fall within the situation referred to in Article 86 EC, that States are under an obligation to eliminate all measures contrary to the Treaty, in order to ensure the effectiveness of Community law.
Tako iz člena 86(1) ES, če gre za javno podjetje, ki ima izključne pravice, in iz člena 10 ES, drugi odstavek, v povezavi s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES, če za koncesionarja ne velja hipoteza iz člena 86 ES, izhaja, da morajo države odpraviti vse ukrepe, ki so v nasprotju s Pogodbo, da bi zagotovile učinkovitost prava Skupnosti.
It follows from this that Member States are required not only to guarantee the puttingout to competition for potential operators when awarding distribution service concessions or renewing them, but also to do everything so that concessions originally granted without being put out to competition are rendered compliant with Community law.
Iz tega sledi, da morajo ob podelitvi koncesij za storitve distribucije ali ob njihovi obnovitvi države članice ne le zagotoviti javni razpis za potencialne dobavitelje, ampak tudi narediti vse, da se koncesije, ki so bile že na začetku podeljene brez javnega razpisa, uskladijo s pravom Skupnosti.
However, if the classification as an obstacle can be upheld, it is still necessary to examine whether the restriction at issue in the main proceedings can be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
Vendar tudi če se opredelitev ovire sprejme, je treba preučiti, ali omejitev, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, ne bi bila opravičljiva zaradi nujnih razlogov splo�nega interesa.
Such an interpretation is implicit in the judgments in Telaustria and Telefonadress, Parking Brixen and Coname, so that it was binding on Member States from the outset.
Tak�na razlaga je razvidna iz zgoraj navedenih sodb Telaustria in Telefonadress, Parking Brixen in Coname, tako da je veljala za države članice že na začetku.
The interpretation extracted by the Community judicature in those judgments forms part of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, it ‘clarifies and defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of entry into force’.
Razlaga Sodi�ča Skupnosti v teh sodbah je vključena v členih 43 ES in 49 ES ter „pojasnjuje in natančneje določa […] pomen in obseg tega pravila, kot bi se moralo razumeti in uporabljati vse od začetka njegove veljave“.
20 Had the Court wished,
20Vendar če je Sodi�če zaradi
21 — Case 309/85 Barra and Others [1988] ECR 355, paragraph 13; Case 24/86 Blaizot and Others [1988] ECR 379, paragraph 28; Case C-163/90 Legros and Others [1992] ECR I-4625, paragraph 30; Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 142; Case C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co. [2000] ECR I-1157, paragraph 57; and Meilicke and Others, paragraph 36. 22 — The Commission shares that opinion.
I-4921, točka 142); z dne 9. marca 2000 v zadevi EKW in Wein & Co (C-437/97, Recueil, str. I-1157, točka 57) ter v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Meilicke in drugi (točka 36). 22 – Komisija meni enako. Tudi v tem smislu, čeprav avtorji sklepajo o tak�ni obveznosti iz besedila Direktive 2003/55: Bouquet, G., in Buttery, E., Vers la fin du droit de préférence accordé aux concessionnaires de transport et de distribution d’électricité et de gaz, AJDA, 2006, str.
964, particularly p. 968.
964, zlasti str. 968.
20 — Case 61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 16; Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837, paragraph 21; Joined Cases C-453/02 and C-462/02 Linneweber and Akritidis [2005] ECR I-1131, paragraph 41; and Case C-292/04 Meilicke and Others [2007] ECR I-1835, paragraph 34. I - 5656
1205, točka 16); z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00, Recueil, str. I-837, točka 21); z dne 17. februarja 2005 v združenih zadevah Linneweber in Akritidis (C-453/02 in C-462/02, ZOdl., str. I-1131, točka 41) in z dne 6. marca 2007 v zadevi Meilicke in drugi (C-292/04, ZOdl., str. I-1835, točka 34). I - 5656
On that basis, the principle of legal certainty and, more specifically, the principle of the stability of legal relations represent a convincing justification for the introduction of transitional measures.
Načelo pravne varnosti in zlasti načelo trdnosti pravnih razmerij zato pomenita prepričljivo utemeljitev v podporo uvedbi prehodnih ukrepov.
National measures which restrict the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty can be justified only if they fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective. 23
Nacionalni ukrepi, ki omejujejo izvajanje temeljnih svobo�čin, zajamčenih s Pogodbo, se lahko utemeljijo samo, če izpolnjujejo �tiri pogoje, in sicer: da se uporabljajo nediskriminacijsko, ustrezajo nujnim razlogom v splo�nem interesu, so primerni za uresničitev zastavljenega cilja in ne prekoračijo okvirov, ki so nujno potrebni za njegovo doseganje. 23
Protecting the stability of legitimately established legal relations appears to me to find a certain echo in the context of the public service concessions concluded prior to Telaustria and Telefonadress to the point of justifying transitional measures with the object of allowing a reasonable period during which conformity with Community law will have to be achieved.
Zdi se mi namreč, da je bila za�čita trdnosti zakonito vzpostavljenih pravnih razmerij upo�tevana v okviru koncesij za javne storitve, sklenjenih pred navedeno sodno prakso Telaustria in Telefonadress, tako da upravičuje prehodne ukrepe z namenom, da se dopusti razumen rok, v katerem je treba uskladiti pravo Skupnosti.
Concerning the existence of overriding reasons relating to the public interest, inasmuch as the exceptions provided for by the Treaty are not applicable to the present case, the parties essentially base their arguments on the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations to justify the introduction of a transitional period.
Glede obstoja nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu – ker izjeme, določene s Pogodbo, v tem primeru niso uporabljive – stranki trditve v glavnem opirata na načela pravne varnosti in legitimnega zaupanja, da bi upravičili uvedbo prehodnega obdobja.
In the present case, the concession at issue was granted in 1984.
V obravnavanem primeru je bila sporna koncesija sklenjena leta 1984.
As the judgment in Telaustria and Telefonadress was not delivered until 2000, the parties could thus, at the time when the concession was granted in 1984, legitimately, until that judgment intervened, hold the view that they were not in breach of Community law.
Ker je bila zgoraj navedena sodba Telaustria in Telefonadress izdana �ele leta 2000, sta stranki leta 1984, ko je bila sklenjena koncesijska pogodba, lahko do objave te sodbe v dobri veri menili, da ne kr�ita prava Skupnosti.
It is possible to regard the principle of legal certainty as one of the overriding reasons relating to the public interest which Member States may claim applies.
I-8153, točka 26); z dne 29. aprila 2004 v združenih zadevah Gemeente Leusden in Holin Groep (C-487/01 in C-7/02, Recueil, str.
The Court has had occasion to point out that that principle, which forms part of the Community legal order, applies not only to the Community institutions, but also to the Member
I-5337, točka 57) in z dne 26. aprila 2005 v zadevi „Goed Wonen“ (C-376/02, ZOdl., str. I-3445, točka 32).
23 — Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37; Case C-212/97 Centros [1999] ECR I-1459, paragraph 34; Case C-424/97 Haim [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph 57; and Case C-248/06 Commission v Spain [2008], paragraph 32.
23 – Sodbe z dne 30. novembra 1995 v zadevi Gebhard (C-55/94, Recueil, str. I-4165, točka 37); z dne 9. marca 1999 v zadevi Centros (C-212/97, Recueil, str.
24 — See, inter alia, Case C-381/97 Belgocodex [1998] ECR I-8153, paragraph 26; Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02 Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep [2004] ECR I-5337, paragraph 57; and Case C-376/02 ‘Goed Wonen’ [2005] ECR I-3445, paragraph 32.
I-1459, točka 34); z dne 4. julija 2000 v zadevi Haim (C-424/97, Recueil, str. I-5123, točka 57) in z dne 13. marca 2008 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-248/06, točka 32).
In those circumstances and in the light of the negative consequences of such caselaw with retroactive effect, particularly for a concession-holder who has invested significantly, thereby justifying the grant of a longterm contract, the introduction of transitional measures, with the object of limiting the adverse effect on existing contractual arrangements and thus of complying with the principle of legal certainty, may constitute an overriding reason relating to the public interest.
V teh okoli�činah in glede na negativne posledice, ki izhajajo iz tak�ne sodne prakse, ki velja za nazaj, posebno za koncesionarja, ki je veliko vlagal in s tem upravičil sklenitev dolgoročne pogodbe, je lahko uvedba prehodnih ukrepov s ciljem omejiti poseg v veljavno pogodbeno ureditev in torej spo�tovati načelo pravne varnosti nujen razlog v splo�nem interesu.
It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the first two questions referred must be as follows:
Iz tega sledi, da je treba na prvi dve zastavljeni vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti:
In support of that argument, the Court thus held that where ‘the Community regulations in question … leave the competent national authorities a sufficiently wide margin of appreciation to enable them to apply those rules in a manner consistent with the requirements of the protection of fundamental rights’, 25then ‘the Member States must, as far as possible, apply those rules in accordance with those requirements’. 26
V podporo tej trditvi je Sodi�če presodilo, da ko „se z zadevno skupnostno ureditvijo dajejo pristojnim nacionalnim organom dovolj velika pooblastila, da jim dovoljujejo uporabo te ureditve v skladu z zahtevami, ki izhajajo iz za�čite temeljnih pravic“, 25takrat „morajo države članice, kolikor je to izvedljivo, uporabljati to ureditev pod pogoji, ki ne kr�ijo navedenih zahtev“.
Concerning the service concessions and pending the intervention of the Community legislature in that specific field, Member States may be considered to have a discretion which is sufficiently wide to authorise them to take into account the requirements connected with legal certainty in the context of the application of the principle of the minimal openingup of such contracts to competition.
26Vendar glede koncesij za storitve in ob pričakovanju intervencije italijanskega zakonodajalca na tem posebnem področju lahko menim, da imajo države članice dovolj �irok manevrski prostor, ki jim dovoljuje upo�tevanje zahtev pravne varnosti v okviru uporabe načela minimalnega odprtja tak�nih pogodb konkurenci.
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency are to be interpreted as precluding a public authority from providing for the maintenance in force of concessions originally granted without any competitive tendering procedure for the duration of a transitional period which it sets, even with the objective of bringing those concessions to an end early, since such a measure constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment.
Člena 43 ES in 49 ES ter načela enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotujejo temu, da organ oblasti določi ohranitev koncesij, že na začetku podeljenih brez javnega razpisa, med trajanjem prehodnega obdobja, ki ga določi, čeprav s ciljem predhodne prekinitve zadevnih koncesij, če je tak ukrep ovira prostemu opravljanju storitev in svobodnemu ustanavljanju.
However, such a restriction may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest linked to legal certainty and, in particular, the stability of legal relations.
Vendar se taka omejitev lahko upraviči iz nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu, povezanih s pravno varnostjo in zlasti trdnostjo pravnih razmerij.
It will be for the national court to satisfy itself that the grant of such transitional measures fulfils those conditions, which it should do on the basis of objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, and that those measures remain proportionate to the object -ive pursued.
Predložitveno sodi�če se mora prepričati, da dovolitev takih prehodnih ukrepov ustreza pogojem, da se izvede na podlagi objektivnih, preglednih in nediskriminacijskih meril, ter da so ti ukrepi sorazmerni z zastavljenim ciljem.
It will, however, be for the national court to assess whether the conditions for the grant
Vendar mora nacionalno sodi�če presoditi, ali pogoji za podelitev prehodnega
27 — See, inter alia, Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 49, and Centro Europa 7, paragraph 103.
27 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 6. marca 2007 v združenih zadevah Placanica in drugi (C-338/04, C-359/04 in C-360/04, ZOdl., str. I-1891, točka 49) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Centro Europa 7 (točka 103).
25 — Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609, paragraph 22.26 — Ibid., paragraph 19.
26 – Prav tam (točka 19).
However, such a restriction may be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest linked to legal certainty and, in particular, the stability of legal relations.
Vendar se tak�na omejitev lahko upraviči iz nujnih razlogov v splo�nem interesu, povezanih s pravno varnostjo in zlasti trdnostjo pravnih razmerij.
It will be for the national court to satisfy itself that the grant of such transitional measures fulfils those conditions, which it should do on the basis of objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria, and that those measures remain proportionate to the objective pursued.
Predložitveno sodi�če se mora prepričati, da dovolitev takih prehodnih ukrepov ustreza tem pogojem, da se izvede v skladu z objektivnimi, preglednimi in nediskriminacijskimi merili ter da so ti ukrepi sorazmerni s ciljem, ki mu sledijo.
2008 — CASE C-347/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-347/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 17. julija 2008 *
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 21 February 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 21. februarja 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-347/06 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-347/06 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 10 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC, of the principles of equal treatment, non-dis -crimination, transparency and proportionality, and of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago členov 10 ES, 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES, načel enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije, preglednosti in sorazmernosti ter Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2003/55/ES z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30/ES (UL L 176, str. 57).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between ASM Brescia SpA (‘ASM Brescia’) and the Comune di Rodengo Saiano (Municipality of Rodengo Saiano) regarding Decision No 19 of 19 July 2005 of the municipal council of that municipality confirming the expiry on 31 December 2005 of the concession which it had granted to ASM Brescia for the natural gas distribution service in its territory.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med ASM Brescia SpA (v nadaljevanju: družba ASM Brescia) in Comune di Rodengo Saiano glede sklepa �t. 19 občinskega sveta te občine z dne 19. julija 2005, ki je bil potrjen 31. decembra 2005, o koncesiji, ki je bila podeljena družbi ASM Brescia, za storitve distribucije zemeljskega plina na njenem ozemlju.
Recital 4 in the preamble to Directive 2003/55 provides:
V četrti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2003/55 je določeno:
‘The freedoms which the Treaty guarantees European citizens — free movement of goods, freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment — are only possible in a fully open market, which enables all consumers freely to choose their suppliers and all suppliers freely to deliver to their customers.’
„Svobo�čine, ki jih Pogodba zagotavlja evropskim državljanom – prost pretok blaga, svoboda opravljanja storitev in svoboda ustanavljanja – so možne le na popolnoma odprtem trgu, ki vsem odjemalcem omogoča svobodno izbiro dobavitelj[a] in vsem dobaviteljem, da svoje proizvode svobodno dobavijo svojim odjemalcem.“
Recital 8 in the preamble to that directive states:
V osmi uvodni izjavi te direktive je določeno:
‘In order to complete the internal gas market, non-discriminatory access to the network of the transmission and distribution system operators is of paramount importance.
„Za vzpostavitev notranjega trga s plinom je bistvenega pomena nepristranski dostop do omrežja upravljavcev prenosnega in distribucijskega omrežja.
A transmission or distribution system operator may consist of one or more undertakings.’
Upravljavec prenosnega ali distribucijskega omrežja je lahko eno ali več podjetij.“
Recital 10 in the preamble to that directive specifies:
V deseti uvodni izjavi te direktive je določeno: