natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards, first, the seriousness of the infringement and, in particular, the consequences of the failure to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal on private and public interests, it should be pointed out that, pursuant to the third recital in the preamble to Directive 89/665, the openingup of public procurement to Community competition necessitates a substantial increase in the guarantees of transparency and non-discrimination.
Prvič, glede resnosti kr�itve in zlasti učinkov neizvr�itve zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski na javne in zasebne interese je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s tretjo uvodno izjavo Direktive 89/665 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 tega odpiranja pa 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.
To that end, Article 1(1) of that directive requires the Member States to ensure that unlawful decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and as rapidly as possible, whereas Article 2(1)(c) thereof emphasis the fact that it is important that national procedures be laid down for awarding damages to persons harmed by such an infringement.
V ta namen člen 1(1) navedene direktive državam članicam nalaga obveznost zagotoviti, da se lahko nezakonite odločitve, ki jih sprejmejo naročniki, učinkovito in čim hitreje pregledajo, medtem ko je v njenem členu 2(1)(c) poudarjeno, da je treba določiti nacionalne postopke, ki omogočajo, da osebe, ki so bile zaradi take kr�itve o�kodovane, dobijo od�kodnino.
It must none the less be found that the coefficient of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 20) suggested by the Commission appears, in the present case, to be too severe; a coefficient of 4 would be more suited, by contrast, to the seriousness of the infringement at issue.
Klujb temu je treba ugotoviti, da se zdi koeficient 11 (na lestvici od 1 do 20) za resnost kr�itve, ki ga je predlagala Komisija, v obravnavani zadevi prestrog, koeficient 4 pa je primernej�i glede na stopnjo resnosti zadevne kr�itve.
As regards, second, the coefficient relating to the duration of the infringement, the Commission’s suggestion that it be set at 1 cannot be upheld.
Drugič, glede koeficienta v zvezi s trajanjem kr�itve predloga Komisije, da naj se določi koeficient 1, ni mogoče sprejeti.
It is apparent from the documents before the Court that that coefficient was calculated on the basis of the time which elapsed between the date of delivery of the judgment in Commission v Portugal and the date on which the present action was brought.
Iz spisa namreč izhaja, da je bil ta koeficient izračunan na podlagi časa, ki je pretekel od datuma razglasitve zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski do datuma vložitve te tožbe.
It should be recalled that the duration of the infringement must be assessed by reference to the time when the Court assesses the facts, not the time at which the case is brought before it by the Commission (see, to that effect, Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 71).
Opozoriti je torej treba, da se mora trajanje kr�itve presoditi ob upo�tevanju trenutka, v katerem Sodi�če obravnava dejansko stanje, in ne glede na trenutek, ko se je nanj obrnila Komisija (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 71).
In the present case, the failure of the Portuguese Republic to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal has persisted for more than three years in the light of the considerable period of time which has elapsed since the date of delivery of that judgment, namely 14 October 2004.
V obravnavani zadevi neizpolnitev obveznosti Portugalske republike glede izvr�itve zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski ob upo�tevanju znatnega časa, ki je pretekel od 14. oktobra 2004, to je datuma, ko je bila navedena sodba razgla�ena, traja več kot tri leta.
In those circumstances, a coefficient of 2 (on a scale of 1 to 3) would appear to be more appropriate to take account of the duration of the infringement.
V teh okoli�činah bi bil koeficient 2 (na lestvici od 1 do 3) glede na trajanje kr�itve primernej�i.
As regards, third, the Commission’s suggestion of multiplying a basic amount by a coefficient based on the gross domestic product of the Member State concerned and on the number of votes which it has in the Council, that suggestion is an appropriate way, in principle, of reflecting that Member State’s ability to pay, while keeping the variation between Member States within a reasonable range (see, to that effect, Commission v Greece, paragraph 88; Commission v Spain, paragraph 59; and Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 109).
Tretjič, predlog Komisije, in sicer, da se osnovni znesek pomnoži s koeficientom, ki temelji na bruto domačem proizvodu zadevne države članice in na �tevilu glasov, ki jih ima v Svetu, je načeloma primeren način odražanja sposobnosti plačila te države članice, ob ohranitvi razumnih razlik med različnimi državami članicami (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 88, Komisija proti Španiji, točka 59, in Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 109).
However, in the present case, the coefficient of 3.9 suggested by the Commission does not adequately reflect the evolution of the factors which are at the basis of the evaluation of the Portuguese Republic’s ability to pay, in particular, as regards the growth of its gross domestic product.
Vendar v obravnavani zadevi koeficient 3,9, ki ga je predlagala Komisija, ne izraža primerno sprememb dejavnikov, ki so temelj ocene plačilne sposobnosti Portugalske republike, zlasti v zvezi z rastjo bruto domačega proizvoda.
Therefore, as is apparent from point 18.1 of the Communication of 2005, that coefficient must be raised from 3.9 to 4.04.
Kot tudi izhaja iz točke 18 Obvestila iz leta 2005, je torej treba ta koeficient zvi�ati s 3,9 na 4,04.
Similarly, the basic amount to which the multiplier coefficients are applied must be fixed at EUR 600, in accordance with the indexing of the amount of EUR 500 set by the Commission in point 15 of that communication, in order to take account of movements in inflation since the publication of the Communication of 1997.
Prav tako je treba osnovni znesek, za katerega se uporabijo multiplikacijski koeficienti, določiti na 600 EUR, v skladu z indeksacijo zneska 500 EUR, ki jo je določila Komisije v točki 15 tega Obvestila, da bi se upo�tevale spremembe inflacije od objave Obvestila iz leta 1997.
In the light of all the above, the multiplication of the basic amount of EUR 600 by coefficients, set at 4 for the seriousness of the infringement, by 2 for the duration of that infringement, and at 4.04 for the ability to pay of the Member State concerned, amounts, in the present case, to a total of EUR 19 392 per day of delay.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega pomnožitev osnovnega zneska 600 EUR s koeficienti, določenimi na 4 za resnost plačila, 2 za trajanje kr�itve in 4,04 za zmožnost plačila zadevne države članice, privede do zneska 19.392 EUR za vsak dan zamude.
That amount must be regarded as adequate in the light of the purposes of the penalty payment as referred to in paragraph 35 above.
Šteti je treba, da je ta znesek primeren glede na namene denarne kazni, kot so navedeni v točki 35 te sodbe.
As regards the frequency of the penalty payment, in a case such as the present one concerning compliance with a judgment of the Court which involves the adoption of a legislative amendment, a penalty imposed on a daily basis should be chosen (see, to that effect, Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 77).
Glede periodičnosti denarne kazni je treba v obravnavani zadevi, v kateri gre za izvr�itev sodbe Sodi�ča, kar implicira zakonodajne spremembe, izbrati denarno kazen, naloženo na dnevni osnovi (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 77).
Finally, the Portuguese Republic’s arguments claiming that it is possible for the Court to order, in the present case, the suspension of the penalty payment within the meaning of point 13.4 of the Communication of 2005 cannot be upheld.
Nazadnje, trditev Portugalske republike v zvezi z možnostjo, da Sodi�če v obravnavani zadevi zadrži denarno kazen v smislu točke 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005, ni mogoče sprejeti.
Irrespective of the fact that, as was pointed out in paragraph 34 of the present judgment, that communication is not binding on the Court, it is sufficient to point out that, in any event, contrary to what is required in point 13.4 of that communication for such a suspension to be granted, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal have not been adopted.
Ne glede na okoli�čino, da, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 34 te sodbe, to Obvestilo Sodi�ča ne zavezuje, je treba poudariti, da – v nasprotju s tem, kar je zahtevano v navedeni točki 13.4, da bi bilo tako zadržanje sprejeto – ukrepi, potrebni za uskladitev z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Portugalski, niso bili sprejeti.
In the light of all of the foregoing, it is necessary to order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 19 392 for every day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, from the day of delivery of judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Commission v Portugal is complied with.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev se Portugalski republiki naloži, naj Komisiji na račun „lastna sredstva Evropske skupnosti“ plača kazen 19.392 EUR za vsak dan zamude pri izvedbi ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, od razglasitve te sodbe do njene izvr�itve.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Portuguese Republic has been unsuccessful in its submissions, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Portugalski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s tožbenimi razlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (prvi senat) razsodilo:
Declares that, by failing to repeal Decree-Law No 48 051 of 21 November 1967, making the award of damages to persons injured by a breach of Community law relating to public contracts, or the national laws implementing it, conditional on proof of fault or fraud, the Portuguese Republic has failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal and has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;
Portugalska republika s tem, da ni razveljavila uredbezakona št. 48 051 z dne 21. novembra 1967, ki za povrnitev škode osebam, ki so bile oškodovane zaradi kršitve prava Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ali nacionalnih predpisov, s katerimi je bilo to preneseno, določa, da je treba dokazati malomarnost ali naklep, ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvršitev sodbe z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski (C-275/03), in zato ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 228(1) ES.
Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 19 392 for every day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal is complied with;
Portugalski republiki se naloži, naj Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti na račun „lastna sredstva Evropske skupnosti“ plača kazen 19.392 EUR za vsak dan zamude pri izvedbi ukrepov, potrebnih za izvršitev zgoraj navedene sodbe z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski, od razglasitve te sodbe do njene izvršitve.
Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Portugalski republiki se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Case C-152/05
Zadeva C-152/05
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Zvezni republiki Nemčiji
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — National legislation — Conditions for the grant of a subsidy for the construction or purchase of a dwelling for personal occupation — Dwelling required to be situated in the territory of the Member State concerned)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES – Nacionalna zakonodaja – Pogoji za dodelitev subvencije za gradnjo ali nakup stanovanja za lastno prebivanje – Stanovanje, ki mora biti na ozemlju zadevne države članice“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 28. junija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Pre-litigation procedure — Formal notice (Art. 226 EC)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Predhodni postopek – Opomin (člen 226 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-152/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-152/05
(Arts 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Državljanstvo Unije (členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES)
unlimited taxation on income, fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine, ne izpolni obveznosti iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
The reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Obrazloženo mnenje mora vsebovati skladen in podroben prikaz razlogov, ki so Komisijo prepričali, da zadevna država ni izpolnila obveznosti na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
On the other hand, the letter of formal notice cannot be subject to such strict requirements of precision, since it cannot, of necessity, contain anything more than an initial brief summary of the complaints.
Nasprotno pa za pisni opomin ne veljajo tako stroge zahteve glede natančnosti, tako da mora pisni opomin nujno vsebovati le prvi strnjen povzetek očitkov.
There is therefore nothing to prevent the Commission from setting out in detail in the reasoned opinion the complaints which it has already made more generally in the letter of formal notice.
Torej Komisiji nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi v pisnem opominu podrobno prikazala očitkov, ki jih je splo�neje navedla že v pisnem opominu.
That legislation has a deterrent effect on persons liable to unlimited taxation on income in that Member State who have the right to freedom of movement under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and who wish to build or purchase a dwelling for their own occupation in another Member State.
Ta zakonodaja ima namreč odvračilni učinek za osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v tej državi članici in imajo pravico do prostega gibanja, ki izhaja iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES, in ki želijo zgraditi ali kupiti stanovanje za lastno prebivanje v drugi državi članici.
Such a restriction cannot be justified by the aim of encouraging the building of dwellings in the territory of that Member State in order to ensure an adequate supply of housing, in so far as it goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
Taka omejitev ne more biti utemeljena s ciljem pospe�evanja gradnje stanovanj na ozemlju te države članice za zagotovitev zadostne ponudbe stanovanj, če presega to, kar je nujno potrebno za uresničitev tega cilja.
A Member State which excludes, in accordance with its legislation, dwellings in another Member State from eligibility for the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings granted to persons liable to
Država članica, ki na podlagi svoje zakonodaje nepremičnine v drugih državah članicah izključi iz dodelitve subvencije za stanovanja, dodeljene osebam, ki so
(see paras 24, 27, 31, operative part 1)
(Glej točke 24, 27, 31 in točko 1 izreka.)
COMMISSION v GERMANY
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI
BOTdelivered on 28 June 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 28. junija 20071
I — Legal background
I – Pravni okvir
These infringement proceedings lead me to examine whether a German law on a subsidy for real property constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement of persons, to freedom of movement for workers and to freedom of establishment, by making receipt of this subsidy subject to the condition that the subsidised property should be situated in Germany.
Ta tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti pelje do preučitve, ali je nem�ki zakon o subvencijah za stanovanja ovira za prosto gibanje oseb, prosto gibanje delavcev in svobodo ustanavljanja, ker dodelitev te subvencije pogojuje s tem, da je subvencionirano blago na nem�kem ozemlju.
A — Community law
A – Pravo Skupnosti
Since the Maastricht Treaty came into force, Article 18 EC has given every citizen of the Union the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States.
Od začetka veljave Maastrichtske pogodbe ima vsak državljan Unije na podlagi člena 18 ES pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic.
The question also arises whether the need to ensure the existence of sufficient housing stock in Germany may be regarded as an overriding reason in the public interest and whether the measure in question may be justified on that ground.
Poleg tega se postavlja vpra�anje, ali se potreba po zagotovitvi zadostnega �tevila stanovanj v Nemčiji lahko �teje za nujni razlog v javnem interesu in ali se zadevni ukrep lahko upraviči s tem razlogom.
According to settled caselaw, Article 18 EC finds specific expression in Article 39 EC with regard to freedom of movement for workers and in Article 43 EC with regard to freedom of establishment. 2
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso pride člen 18 ES posebej do izraza v členu 39 ES, ki se nana�a na prosto gibanje delavcev, in členu 43 ES, ki se nana�a na svobodo ustanavljanja.2
Having first explained that Article 18 EC does not apply to the situations at issue in this case, I shall propose that the Court should declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Po obrazložitvi, da se člen 18 ES ne uporablja za položaj v tej zadevi, bom predlagal Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da Zvezna republika Nemčija ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 39 ES in 43 ES.
Under Article 39 EC, workers have the right to move freely within the Community.
V skladu s členom 39 ES se delavcem v Skupnosti zagotovi prosto gibanje.
Under Article 39(2), freedom of movement ‘shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’.
Na podlagi člena 39(2) prosto gibanje „vključuje odpravo vsakr�ne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva delavcev držav članic v zvezi z zaposlitvijo, plačilom in drugimi delovnimi in zaposlitvenimi pogoji“.
B — National law
B – Nacionalno pravo
In Germany, under Paragraph 1 of the Eigenheimzulagengesetz (Law on subsidies for owneroccupied dwellings 5), persons liable to unlimited German income tax for the purposes of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax 6), are entitled to a property subsidy in order to purchase or build a dwelling.
V Nemčiji imajo na podlagi člena 1 Eigenheimzulagengesetz (nem�ki zakoni o subvencijah za stanovanja)5osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine v smislu Einkommensteuergesetz (zakon o dohodnini)6, pravico do subvencije za stanovanja za nakup ali gradnjo bivali�ča.
Under Paragraph 1 of the EStG, the following are considered to be liable to unlimited German income tax:
V skladu s členom 1 EStG se �teje, da so v celoti zavezani za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine:
Similarly, the first subparagraph of Article 43 EC prohibits such restrictions of the freedom of establishment of nationals of
Enako člen 43, prvi odstavek, ES prepoveduje take omejitve svobode ustanavljanja za
— persons who have their domicile or habitual residence in Germany,
— osebe s stalnim ali običajnim prebivali�čem v Nemčiji,
3 — The Court has, inter alia, in the light of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p.
3 — Sodi�če je glede Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 1612/68 z dne 15. oktobra 1968 o prostem gibanju delavcev v Skupnosti (UL L 257, str.
475), defined the advantages granted to workers as those which ‘are generally granted to national workers primarily because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory and the extension of which to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems suitable to facilitate their mobility within the Community’ (Case 207/78 Even and ONPTS [1979] ECR 2019, paragraph 22).
2) med drugim določilo ugodnosti, ki so priznane delavcem, opredeljene kot te, ki „so splo�no priznane nacionalnim delavcem, predvsem iz razloga objektivne kakovosti delavcev ali samega dejstva, da prebivajo na nacionalnem območju, torej njihova raz�iritev na delavce, ki so državljani drugih držav članic, kaže, da olaj�uje njihovo mobilnost znotraj Skupnosti“ (sodba z dne 31. maja 1979 v zadevi Even in ONPTS, 207/78, Recueil, str. 2019, točka 22).
734, as amended by the ancillary budget law (Haushaltsbegleitgesetz) 2004 [BGBl. 2003 I, p.
734, kakor je bil spremenjen z zakonom, ki spremlja proračun iz leta 2004 (Haushaltsbegleitgesetz (BGBl. 2003 I, str.
3076], or ‘the law on the property subsidy’.
3076)), v nadaljevanju: zakon o subvencijah za nepremičnine.
4 — See Case 63/86 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 29, paragraphs 16 and 17.
4 — Glej sodbo z dne 14. januarja 1988 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (63/86, Recueil, str. 29, točki 16 in 17).
4210, or ‘the EStG’.
4210, v nadaljevanju: EStG.
II — The pre-litigation procedure
II – Predhodni postopek
— German nationals who do not have either their domicile or habitual residence in Germany but work for a legal person governed by public law,
— nem�ki državljani, ki nimajo niti stalnega niti običajnega prebivali�ča v Nemčiji in delajo za račun pravne osebe javnega prava,
In its letter of formal notice of 4 April 2000, the Commission of the European Communities informed the Federal Republic of Germany of its doubts about the compatibility with Community law of the law on the property subsidy.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti je v pisnem opominu z dne 4. aprila 2000 Zvezno republiko Nemčijo obvestila o dvomih glede skladnosti zakona o subvencijah za stanovanja s pravom Skupnosti.
The Commission takes the view that the condition requiring the subsidised property to be situated in Germany is contrary to Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, since a person liable to unlimited German income tax and permanently resident abroad could not qualify for the subsidy for the purpose of purchasing a property abroad.
Komisija namreč meni, da je pogoj, da mora biti subvencionirana nepremičnina na nem�kem ozemlju, v nasprotju s členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES, saj oseba, ki je v celoti zavezana za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine in prebiva v tujini, ne more koristiti subvencije za pridobitev nepremičnine v tujini.