natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard, subsequently, to the relevant economic environment or, in other words, the relevant market which must be considered in order to ascertain whether the entity in question is exercising its activities in competitive conditions, account must be taken, as the Advocate General proposes in points 53 and 54 of his Opinion, having regard to the functional interpretation of the concept of a ‘body governed by public law’, of the sector for which Fernwärme Wien was created, that is to say the supply of district heating by means of the use of energy produced by the burning of waste.
Dalje, v zvezi z upo�tevnim gospodarskim okoljem ali povedano drugače v zvezi z referenčnim trgom, kjer je treba preveriti, ali zadevni naročnik opravlja ali ne opravlja svoje dejavnosti v pogojih konkurence, je treba upo�tevati, kot predlaga generalni pravobranilec v točkah 53 in 54 sklepnih predlogov, glede na namensko razlago pojma „oseba javnega prava“, sektor, za katerega je bila ustanovljena družba Fernwärme Wien, to je oskrba s toplovodnim ogrevanjem z uporabo energije, ki izhaja iz sežiganja odpadkov.
It is clear from the order for reference that Fernwärme Wien enjoys a virtual monopoly in that sector, since the two other undertakings operating in that sector are of negligible size and accordingly cannot constitute true competitors.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da ima družba Fernwärme Wien v tem sektorju položaj dejanskega monopola, ker sta dve drugi družbi, ki tam opravljata svoje dejavnosti, zanemarljive velikosti in zato ne pomenita resnične konkurence.
Furthermore, there is a considerable degree of autonomy in this sector, since it would be very difficult to replace the district heating system by another form of energy, since this would require large-scale conversion work.
Med drugim je ta sektor precej samostojen, ker je zelo težko zamenjati sistem toplovodnega ogrevanja z drugimi viri energije, saj to zahteva zelo velika preureditvena dela.
Finally, the City of Vienna attaches a particular importance to this heating system, not least for reasons of environmental considerations.
Nazadnje, mesto Dunaj pripisuje temu sistemu ogrevanja poseben pomen zaradi okoljevarstvenih vpra�anj.
Thus, having regard to the pressure of public opinion, it would not permit it to be withdrawn, even if that system were to operate at a loss.
Zaradi pritiska javnega mnenja ne bi dovolilo odpraviti tega sistema, čeprav bi ta deloval z izgubo.
Having regard to the various indications provided by the referring court and as the Advocate General observes in point 57 of his Opinion, Fernwärme Wien is currently the only undertaking capable of meeting such needs in the general interest in the sector under consideration, so that it might choose to be guided by considerations other than economic ones in the award of its contracts.
Glede na vse te različne ugotovitve, ki jih je navedlo predložitveno sodi�če in ki jih navaja generalni pravobranilec v točki 57 sklepnih predlogov, je družba Fernwärme Wien trenutno edino podjetje, ki lahko zadovolji tak�no potrebo splo�nega interesa v zadevnem sektorju tako, da bi jo lahko vodili pri oddaji naročil drugi motivi kot ekonomski.
In the judgments in BFI Holding (paragraph 49) and Agorà and Excelsior (paragraph 38), the Court held that the existence of significant competition may be an indication in support of the conclusion that there is no need in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.
V zgoraj navedenih sodbah BFI Holding (točka 49) ter Agorà in Excelsior (točka 38) je Sodi�če poudarilo, da bi bil obstoj razvite konkurence pokazatelj dejstva, da ne gre za potrebo splo�nega interesa, ki nima industrijske ali tržne narave.
In the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, it is clear from the reference for the preliminary ruling that the criterion requiring the existence of significant competition is far from fulfilled.
V okoli�činah zadeve v postopku v glavni stvari iz predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe jasno izhaja, da to merilo obstoja razvite konkurence �e zdaleč ni izpolnjeno.
It must be borne in mind that it is immaterial whether, in addition to its duty to meet needs in the general interest, an entity is free to carry out other profit-making activities, provided that it continues to attend to the needs which it is specifically required to meet.
Dodati je treba, da v zvezi s tem ni pomembno, da omenjeni naročnik poleg svojih nalog v splo�nem interesu lahko opravlja tudi druge dejavnosti s pridobitnim namenom, dokler se �e naprej ukvarja s potrebami splo�nega interesa, za katere je posebej zadolžen, da jih zadovoljuje.
The proportion of profit-making activities actually pursued by that entity as part of its activities as a whole is also irrelevant for its classification as a body governed by public law (see, to that effect, Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others, paragraph 25; Korhonen, paragraphs 57 and 58; and Case C-373/00 Adolf Truley [2003] ECR I-1931, paragraph 56).
Del, ki ga v okviru splo�ne dejavnosti tega naročnika zavzemajo dejavnosti, ki se opravljajo zaradi pridobitnega namena, za namene opredelitve tega naročnika kot osebe javnega prava nima pomena (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi, točka 25, sodbo z dne 27. februarja 2003 v zadevi Adolf Truley, C-373/00, Recueil, str. I-1931, točka 56, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Korhonen, točki 57 in 58).
In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question must be that an entity such as Fernwärme Wien is to be regarded as a body governed by public law within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1)(a) of Direct- ive 2004/17 and the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18.
Glede na te ugotovitve je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba naročnika, kot je družba Fernwärme Wien, opredeliti kot osebo javnega prava v smislu člena 2(1)(a), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/17 in člena 1(9), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/18.
By its third question, the referring court asks whether all contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17
S tretjim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali velja za vsa naročila, ki jih odda naročnik, ki je oseba javnega prava v smislu Direktive 2004/17 ali Direktive
AIGNER or Directive 2004/18, are to be subject to the rules of one or the other of those directives if, through effective precautions, a clear separation is possible between the activities carried out by that body to accomplish its task of meeting needs in the general interest and the activities which it carries out in competitive conditions, so that cross financing between the two types of activities can be excluded.
2004/18, ureditev iz ene od teh dveh direktiv, če je mogoče z uporabo učinkovitih ukrepov popolnoma ločiti med dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja ta oseba za izpolnjevanje svojih nalog zadovoljevanja potreb splo�nega interesa, in tistimi, ki jih opravlja v pogojih konkurence, tako da se lahko izključi navzkrižno financiranje med tema vrstama dejavnosti.
It should be borne in mind in that regard that the problem underlying that question was examined by the Court for the first time in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others relating to the interpretation of Directive 93/37 on public works contracts, and that the Court came to the conclusion, in paragraph 35 of that judgment, that all contracts, of whatever nature, entered into by a contracting authority were to be subject to the rules of that directive.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je bila problematika, ki je podlaga za to vpra�anje, prvič predmet obravnave Sodi�ča v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana zgoraj navedena sodba Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi v zvezi z razlago Direktive 93/37 o oddaji javnih naročil za gradnje. Sodi�če je v točki 35 te sodbe ugotovilo, da velja za vsa naročila, ki jih odda oseba, ki je javni naročnik, ne glede na njihovo naravo, ureditev iz te direktive.
The Court reiterated that position, with regard to public service contracts, in the judgments in BFI Holding (paragraphs 55 and 56) and Korhonen (paragraphs 57 and 58) and, with regard to public supply contracts, in the judgment in Adolf Truley (paragraph 56).
Sodi�če je to stali�če ponovilo v zvezi z javnimi naročili storitev v zgoraj navedenih sodbah BFI Holding (točki 55 in 56) ter Korhonen in drugi (točki 57 in 58) ter v zvezi z javnimi naročili blaga v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Adolf Truley (točka 56).
That position also applies to Directive 2004/18, which represents a recasting of the provisions of all the preceding directives on the award of public contracts which it follows (see, to that effect, Bayerischer Rundfunk, paragraph 30).
To stali�če velja prav tako za Direktivo 2004/18, ki pomeni preoblikovanje določb vseh predhodnih direktiv na področju oddaje javnih naročil, ki jih je nasledila (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Bayerischer Rundfunk in drugi, točka 30).
That conclusion is inescapable also in respect of entities which use an accounting system intended to make a clear internal separation between the activities carried out by them to accomplish their task of meeting needs in the general interest and activities which they carry out in competitive conditions.
To stali�če velja prav tako za naročnike, ki uporabljajo sistem računovodstva za popolno notranjo ločitev med dejavnostmi, ki jih opravljajo za izpolnjevanje svojih nalog zadovoljevanja potreb splo�nega interesa, in tistimi, ki jih opravljajo v pogojih konkurence.
As the Advocate General points out in points 64 and 65 of his Opinion, there must be serious doubts that, in reality, it is possible to establish such a separation between
Kot poudarja generalni pravobranilec v točkah 64 in 65 sklepnih predlogov, je namreč mogoče resno podvomiti, da bi bilo v resnici mogoče uveljaviti tak�no
2008 — CASE C-393/06 the different activities of one entity consisting of a single legal person which has a single system of assets and property and whose administrative and management decisions are taken in unitary fashion, even ignoring the many other practical obs- tacles with regard to reviewing before and after the event the total separation between the different spheres of activity of the entity concerned and the classification of the activity in question as belonging to a particular sphere.
2008 – ZADEVA C-393/06 ločitev med različnimi dejavnostmi naročnika, ki tvori celovito pravno osebo ter ima enoten sistem premoženja in sredstev ter se odločitve v zvezi z vodenjem in upravljanjem sprejemajo enotno, in to tudi ne glede na �tevilne druge praktične ovire glede nadzora ex ante in ex post popolne ločitve med različnimi področji dejavnosti zadevnega naročnika in razvrstitve zadevne dejavnosti v eno izmed teh področij.
Thus, having regard to the reasons of legal certainty, transparency and predictability which govern the implementation of procedures for all public procurement, the caselaw of the Court set out in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the present judgment must be followed.
Zato je treba zaradi pravne varnosti, preglednosti in predvidljivosti, na podlagi katerih se vodijo vsi postopki javnih naročil, upo�tevati sodno prakso Sodi�ča, določeno v točkah 50 in 51 obravnavane sodbe.
Nevertheless, as is apparent from paragraph 49 of the present judgment, the question posed by the referring court at the same time relates to Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz točke 49 te sodbe, se vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča nana�a na direktivi 2004/17 in 2004/18 hkrati.
In that regard, it should be noted that, in the context of the examination of the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, it was held that an entity such as Fernwärme Wien is to be regarded as a body governed by public law within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or of Directive 2004/18.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je bilo v okviru obravnave drugega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje ugotovljeno, da je treba podjetje, kot je Fernwärme Wien, opredeliti kot osebo javnega prava v smislu Direktive 2004/17 in Direktive 2004/18.
Furthermore, in examining the first question referred for a preliminary ruling, the Court concluded that a contracting entity, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17, is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive only for the award of contracts which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 thereof.
Med drugim je Sodi�če v okviru obravnave prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje ugotovilo, da je treba za naročnika v smislu Direktive 2004/17 uporabiti postopek iz te direktive le za oddajo javnih naročil, ki so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih to podjetje opravlja v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
It is appropriate to state that, in accordance with the caselaw of the Court, contracts awarded in the sphere of one of the activities expressly listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 and contracts which, although different in nature and thus capable normally, as such, of falling within the scope of Directive 2004/18, are used in the
Pojasniti je treba, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča Direktiva 2004/17 velja za oddajo naročil na področju dejavnosti, ki so izrecno navedene v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive, kot tudi za naročila, ki imajo drugačno naravo in lahko kot taka običajno spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive 2004/18, če služijo opravljanju
AIGNER exercise of activities defined in Directive 2004/17 fall within the scope of the latter directive (see, to that effect, Strabag and Kostmann, paragraphs 41 and 42).
AIGNER dejavnosti, ki so opredeljene v Direktivi 2004/17 (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Strabag in Kostmann, točki 41 in 42).
Consequently, the contracts awarded by an entity such as Fernwärme Wien are covered by the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/17 since they are connected with an activity which it carries out in the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 thereof.
Zato se za oddajo naročil naročnika, kot je družba Fernwärme Wien, uporabi postopek iz Direktive 2004/17, kadar so v zvezi z dejavnostjo, ki jo ta opravlja v sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
However, all other contracts awarded by such an entity in connection with the exercise of other activities are covered by the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18.
Za vse ostale oddaje naročil takega naročnika v zvezi z drugimi dejavnostmi pa se uporabi postopek iz Direktive 2004/18.
The answer to the third question must therefore be that all contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 must be subject to the procedures laid down in that directive.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da za naročila, ki jih odda naročnik, ki je oseba javnega prava v smislu direktiv 2004/17 in 2004/18, ter so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja ta naročnik v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17, veljajo postopki, navedeni v tej direktivi.
Each of these two directives applies without distinction between the activities carried out by that entity to accomplish its task of meeting needs in the general interest and activities which it carries out under competitive conditions, and even where there is an accounting system intended to make a clear internal separation between those activities in order to avoid crossfinancing between those sectors.
Ti direktivi se uporabita ne glede na razlikovanje med dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik opravlja za izpolnjevanje svojih nalog zadovoljevanja potreb splo�nega interesa, in dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja v pogojih konkurence, in to celo takrat, kadar obstaja ločeno računovodstvo za ločitev sektorjev dejavnosti tega naročnika, da bi preprečili navzkrižno financiranje med temi sektorji.
A contracting entity, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive only for the award of contracts which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive.
Naročnik, v smislu Direktive 2004/17 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem in transportnem sektorju ter sektorju poštnih storitev, mora uporabiti postopek iz te direktive le za oddajo javnih naročil, ki so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik opravlja v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
An entity such as Fernwärme Wien GmbH is to be regarded as a body governed by public law within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/17 and the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.
Naročnika, kot je družba Fernwärme Wien GmbH, je treba opredeliti kot osebo javnega prava v smislu člena 2(1)(a), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/17 in člena 1(9), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/18 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev.
All contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 must be subject to the procedures laid down in that directive.
Za naročila, ki jih odda naročnik, ki je oseba javnega prava v smislu direktiv 2004/17 in 2004/18, ter so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja ta naročnik v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17, veljajo postopki, navedeni v tej direktivi.
Each of these two directives applies without distinction between the activities carried out by that entity to accomplish its task of meeting needs in the general interest and activities which it carries out under competitive conditions, and even where there is an accounting system intended to make a clear internal separation between those activities in order to avoid cross financing between those sectors.
Ti direktivi se uporabita ne glede na razlikovanje med dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik opravlja za izpolnjevanje svojih nalog zadovoljevanja potreb splošnega interesa, in dejavnostmi, ki jih opravlja v pogojih konkurence, in to celo takrat, kadar obstaja ločeno računovodstvo za ločitev sektorjev dejavnosti tega naročnika, da bi preprečili navzkrižno financiranje med temi sektorji.
Case C-412/06
Zadeva C-412/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart)
(Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Directive 85/577/EEC — First paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) — Contract for long-term credit — Right of cancellation)
„Varstvo potro�nikov – Pogodbe, sklenjene zunaj poslovnih prostorov – Direktiva 85/577/EGS – Člena 4, prvi odstavek, in 5(1) – Pogodba o dolgoročnem kreditu – Pravica do odstopa“
Approximation of laws — Protection of consumers in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises — Directive 85/577
Približevanje zakonodaj – Varstvo potrošnikov v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov – Direktiva 85/577
SUMMARY — CASE C-412/06 under a contract for long-term credit, where the consumer has been given defective notice concerning the exercise of that right.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-412/06 v celoti izpolnita obveznosti iz pogodbe o dolgoročnem kreditu.
Directive 85/577 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is entitled to provide that the right of cancellation laid down in Article 5(1) of the directive may be exercised no later than one month from the time at which the contracting parties have performed in full their obligations
Direktivo 85/577 za varstvo potro�nika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov, je treba razlagati tako, da nacionalni zakonodajalec lahko določi, da se pravica do odstopa iz člena 5(1) te direktive, če je potro�nik prejel napačen pouk o uveljavljanju te pravice, lahko uveljavlja najpozneje en mesec po tem, ko obe pogodbeni stranki
(see para. 49, operative part)
(Glej točko 49 in izrek.)
In 1998, Ms Hamilton noted a significant reduction in the monthly distributions from the fund, which were intended to cover a substantial part of the loan interest.
Leta 1998 je A. Hamilton ugotovila, da je pri�lo do precej�njega zmanj�anja mesečnih prihodkov sklada, ki naj bi ji omogočili plačilo glavnega dela posojilnih obresti.
She therefore decided to reschedule her debt by concluding a building society savings contract and taking out a bridging loan with the result that, at the end of April 1998, she had repaid in full the amount owed to the Volksbank Filder eG and, consequently, the bank returned the security for the initial loan.
Zato se je odločila, da bo prerazporedila svoj dolg s pomočjo sklenitve pogodbe o stanovanjskem varčevanju in ugodnosti posredni�kega posojila, tako da je konec aprila 1998 v celoti odplačala posojilo Volksbank Filder eG, ki ji je zato vrnila garancije začetnega posojila.
In this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court is asked whether, having regard to Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises 2, national legislation may place a timelimit on the right of cancellation of a consumer who has concluded a contract in a doorstep-selling situation, notwithstanding the fact that the consumer was given incorrect information regarding that right.
S tem vpra�anjem za predhodno odločanje se Sodi�če napro�a, naj se izreče o možnosti, da se z nacionalno zakonodajo, glede na Direktivo Sveta 85/577/EGS z dne 20. decembra 1985 za varstvo potro�nika v primeru pogodb, sklenjenih zunaj poslovnih prostorov 2, časovno omeji uresničevanje pravice do odstopa, ki jo ima potro�nik, ki je sklenil pogodbo v okviru prodaje od vrat do vrat, čeprav glede te pravice ni bil pravilno poučen.
I — The main proceedings, the legal framework and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
I – Spor o glavni stvari, pravni okvir in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
Although, as required under the third sentence of Paragraph 7(2) of the Law on consumer credit (Verbraucherkreditgesetz), Ms Hamilton had received a notice concerning her right of cancellation, that notice was incorrect inasmuch as it did not concern the conditions for the exercise of the right of cancellation in a doorstep-selling situation.
Čeprav je bila v skladu s členom 7(2), tretji stavek, zakona o potro�ni�kih kreditih (Verbraucherkreditgesetz) tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari poučena o pravici do odstopa, se je ta pouk ni izkazal kot pravilen, kolikor se ni nana�al na odstopne pogoje pri prodaji od vrat do vrat.
‘In the case of transactions within the scope of Article 1, traders shall be required to give consumers written notice of their right of cancellation within the period laid down in Article 5, together with the name and address of a person against whom that right may be exercised.
„V primeru poslov v smislu člena 1 se od trgovcev zahteva, da potro�nike pisno poučijo o njihovi pravici do preklica v roku iz člena 5, skupaj z imenom in naslovom osebe, zoper katero se pravica lahko uveljavlja.