natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Article 65(3) of that law, if the administrative declaration of invalidity of a contract seriously disrupts public services, provision may be made for the effects of the contract to continue on the same conditions, until urgent measures have been taken to avoid any harm.
V skladu z odstavkom 3 istega člena, se lahko pod enakimi pogoji ohranijo učinki pogodbe, če bi upravna razglasitev ničnosti resno ovirala storitve javnih služb, dokler niso sprejeti nujni ukrepi za preprečitev �kode.
It follows from Article 93(1) of the Law on public procurement that, once the contracting authority has awarded a public contract, regardless of the procedure followed, the award is to be notified to the participants in the call for tenders and, after the finalisation of the contract, is communicated to the competent authority responsible for keeping the public register of contracts referred to in Article 118 of that law for the purposes provided for in Article 58 thereof.
Iz člena 93(1) zakona o javnih naročilih izhaja, da je treba po oddaji javnega naročila s strani naročnika ne glede na uporabljeni postopek vročiti odločbo o oddaji udeležencem javnega razpisa in jo po sklenitvi pogodbe posredovati pristojni ustanovi, ki vodi javni register o javnih naročilih v skladu s členom 118 omenjenega zakona, za namene, določene v členu 58 istega zakona.
Pursuant to Article 93(5) of that law, the contracting authority is to communicate to any unsuccessful candidate or tenderer who so requests, within a period of 15 days of receipt of that request, the reasons for the rejection of its candidature or its offer, as well as the features of the successful contractor’s offer which were decisive in the decision to award the contract to the latter.
V skladu s odstavkom 5 omenjenega člena 93 naročnik sporoči vsem neizbranim kandidatom ali ponudnikom, ki to zahtevajo, v petnajstih dneh od prejema te zahteve razloge za zavrnitev njegove kandidature ali predloga ter značilnosti ponudbe izbranega ponudnika, ki so bile odločilne za oddajo javnega naročila temu ponudniku.
Article 83(4) of the implementing rules for the Law on public procurement (Reglamento general de la Ley de Contratos de las Administraciones Públicas), approved by Royal Decree 1098/2001 (Real Decreto 1098/2001) of 12 October 2001 (BOE No 257, of 26 October 2001, p.
Člen 83(4) pravilnika o izvedbi zakona o javnih naročilih (Reglamento general de la Ley de Contratos de las Administraciones Públicas), kot je bil potrjen s kraljevim dekretom. 1098/2001 (Real Decreto 1098/2001) z dne 12. oktobra 2001 (BOE �t.
39252) provides that the result of the assessment of the tenders submitted is to be notified, indicating the successful bids, the unsuccessful bids and the reasons for rejection.
257 z dne 26. oktobra 2001, str. 39252), določa, da se objavi izid presoje predloženih ponudb z navedbo sprejetih in zavrnjenih ponudb in se navede razloge za zavrnitev.
40300), as amended by Law No 4/1999 of 13 January 1999, (‘Law on the common administrative procedure’), provides in Article 58:
40300), kot je bil spremenjen z zakonom 4/1999 z dne 13. januarja 1999 (v nadaljevanju: zakon o splo�nem upravnem postopku), v členu 58 določa:
Decisions and administrative acts affecting their rights and interests shall be notified to the persons concerned, in accordance with the rules provided for in the following article.
Zainteresiranim strankam je treba vročiti odločbe in upravne akte, ki vplivajo na njihove pravice in interese, v skladu z določbami naslednjega člena.
All notification shall be made in the 10 days following the date on which the act was adopted.
Vročiti jih je treba v desetih dneh po sprejetju akta.
It shall contain the full text of the decision and shall state whether
V vročeni po�iljki mora biti navedeno besedilo odločbe v celoti in ali je upravna odločba dokončna ali ne. Določen
COMMISSION v SPAIN or not it is a final administrative decision. It shall give details of the possibilities of review and the body before which any review must be applied for, without prejudice to fact that the persons concerned may bring, where appropriate, any other action which they consider necessary.’
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠPANIJI mora biti pravni pouk o reviziji, organ, pri katerem je treba vložiti revizijo, in rok za njeno vložitev, ne glede na to, da lahko zainteresirane stranke po potrebi vlagajo tudi druge zahteve za revizijo, za katere menijo, da so potrebne.“
According to Article 107(1) of that law, review may be sought of decisions and administrative acts which decide, directly or indirectly, the substance of the case, make it impossible to continue the procedure or to put up a defence, or cause irreparable harm to legitimate rights or interests.
V skladu s členom 107(1) omenjenega zakona so lahko predmet zahteve za revizijo odločbe in pripravljalna dejanja v postopku, ki neposredno ali posredno zadevajo vsebino zadeve, ki onemogočajo nadaljevanje postopka ali obrambo ali ki nepopravljivo �kodijo pravicam ali upravičenim interesom oziroma posegajo vanje.
Article 111 of that law sets out the interim measures which may be applied for in the context of administrative review proceedings, in particular the suspension of the contested acts.
Člen 111 istega zakona določa začasne ukrepe, ki se jih lahko zahteva v okviru upravnega postopka, zlasti odložitev izpodbijanih dejanj.
Background to the dispute and the prelitigation procedure
Dejansko stanje in predhodni postopek
By letter of 30 November 2001, the Commission requested the Kingdom of Spain to submit its observations on the compatibility of the Law on public procurement with the review directive in the light of the impact of Case C-81/98 Alcatel Austria and Others [1999] ECR I-7671.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 30. novembra 2001 od Kraljevine Španije zahtevala, naj ji poda pripombe v zvezi z združljivostjo zakona o javnih naročilih z direktivo o reviziji glede na učinke sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 28. oktobra 1999 v zadevi Alcatel Austria in drugi (C-81/98, Recueil, str. I-7671).
Since it did not consider the responses given by the Kingdom of Spain, by letter of 27 February 2002, to be satisfactory, the Commission gave it formal notice on 16 October 2002.
Ker je Komisija menila, da so odgovori, ki jih je Kraljevina Španija predložila v dopisu z dne 27. februarja 2002, nezadostni, je 16. oktobra 2002 nanjo naslovila pisni opomin.
On 7 July 2004, the Commission, having considered the observations submitted in response to that formal notice by the Kingdom of Spain, issued a reasoned opinion inviting that Member State to take the measures necessary to comply with the opinion within a period of two months from the date of its receipt.
Po opravljeni preučitvi pripomb, ki so bile predložene v odgovoru na omenjeni pisni opomin, je Komisija 7. julija 2004 izdala obrazloženo mnenje, s katerim je to državo članico pozvala, naj v dveh mesecih od njegove vročitve sprejme ustrezne ukrepe za uskladitev z navedenim mnenjem.
In those circumstances, having found that the legislation at issue had not been amended by the end of that period, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Komisija se je ob ugotovitvi, da sporna zakonodaja ni bila spremenjena ob izteku tega roka, odločila vložiti to tožbo.
The Commission claims that the Spanish legislation infringes Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of the review directive and puts forward three pleas in law, the first two of which should be dealt with together.
Komisija meni, da �panska pravna ureditev kr�i člen 2(1)(a) in (b) direktive o reviziji in navaja tri očitke, od katerih je treba prva dva obravnavati skupaj.
The first and second pleas
Prvi in drugi očitek
By those pleas, the Commission claims that the national legislation at issue does not comply with the review directive in that certain provisions of that legislation in combination prevent unsuccessful tenderers from effectively instituting review proceedings against a decision to award a contract before the conclusion as such of the contract resulting from it.
Komisija v zvezi s tema očitkoma navaja, da zadevna nacionalna zakonodaja ni v skladu z direktivo o reviziji, ker skupek nekaterih določb te zakonodaje preprečuje neizbranim ponudnikom, da bi lahko učinkovito vlagali zahtevo za revizijo zoper odločbo o oddaji javnega naročila pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, ki izhaja iz tega.
According to the Commission, the breach of obligations is established, regardless of the scope of the concept of ‘finalisation’ of a contract which appears in the Spanish legislation, that is to say, whether such finalisation is considered to be equivalent to the conclusion as such of the contract or merely to constitute an administrative formality, in which case the conclusion takes place at the same time as the award of the contract.
Komisija meni, da je očitana neizpolnitev obveznosti podana, ne glede na obseg koncepta sklenitve pogodbe, ki ga določa �panska zakonodaja, in sicer ne glede na to, ali gre pri tej sklenitvi za sklenitev same pogodbe ali pa le za upravno formalnost, kjer se je sklenitev zgodila sočasno z oddajo javnega naročila.
As regards the first view, that is to say that the finalisation of the contract — which, in the Commission’s submission, is the moment when the contract fulfils all the legal requirements and when its performance can begin — is equivalent to its conclusion within the meaning of the review directive, the Commission claims that the obligations imposed by that directive have not been fulfilled in that the unsuccessful tenderers do not have the necessary guarantees in order to challenge an unlawful decision to award a contract before the finalisation of the contract resulting from it.
Komisija glede prvega primera – v katerem naj bi sklenitev pogodbe, po mnenju Komisije je to takrat, ko pogodba izpolnjuje vse zakonske pogoje in se lahko začne njena izvr�itev, ustrezala pojmu sklenitve v smislu direktive o reviziji – meni, da niso izpolnjene obveznosti, ki jih nalaga omenjena direktiva, ker neizbrani ponudniki nimajo varstva, potrebnega za izpodbijanje nezakonite odločbe o oddaji javnega naročila, pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, ki sledi tej odločbi.
According to the Commission, in the absence of an obligation to notify the decision to all the persons concerned at the same time and a waiting period during which the contract cannot be finalised, thereby denying the unsuccessful tenderers the possibility of a reasonable period in which to instigate, before the conclusion of the contract, appropriate review proceedings, the Spanish legislation does not comply with the requirements of the review directive.
Po mnenju Komisije �panska zakonodaja s tem, da ne določa obvezne sočasne vročitve odločbe o oddaji vsem zainteresiranim strankam in ne določa roka, ki mora preteči, preden je pogodba lahko sklenjena, in tako onemogoča neizbranim ponudnikom možnost, da bi imeli razumen rok za učinkovito revizijo, ne izpolnjuje zahtev direktive o reviziji.
As regards the second view, according to which the conclusion of the contract takes place at the same time as the award of the contract, finalisation being a mere administrative formality, the Commission claims that the legal problem identified in the assessment of the first view is actually more serious, in that there is no act of awarding the contract in question capable of giving rise to review proceedings independent of the act of concluding the contract relating to that tendering procedure.
V zvezi z drugim primerom, v katerem naj bi sklenitev pogodbe sovpadala z oddajo javnega naročila in je bila sklenitev le upravna formalnost, Komisija meni, da je v njem pravno vpra�anje dejansko zahtevnej�e kot v okviru analize v zvezi s prvim primerom, ker tu ni posebnega akta oddaje zadevnega javnega naročila, zoper katerega bi bilo mogoče vložiti revizijo, neodvisno od dejanja sklenitve pogodbe v zvezi s tem naročilom.
Since no review proceedings are possible against the act of awarding at a stage earlier than the conclusion of the contract where any infringement of the applicable law may still be corrected and where the tenderer who brings the review proceedings may still hope to become the contractor, the Spanish legislation does not provide complete legal protection before the conclusion of the contract, contrary to the requirements of Article 2(1) of the review directive.
Ker torej zahteva za revizijo ni vložena zoper dejanje oddaje kot stopnje pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, v kateri bi se lahko popravila morebitna zmotna uporaba prava in bi ponudnik, ki vlaga zahtevo za revizijo, lahko �e vedno upal, da postane izbrani ponudnik, �panska zakonodaja ne zagotavlja popolne pravne varnosti pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, kar je v nasprotju s členom 2(1) direktive o reviziji.
At the outset, the Kingdom of Spain defines the scope which should be given, respectively, to the act of awarding the contract and the finalisation of the contract which follows it.
Kraljevina Španija uvodoma navaja obseg, ki ga je treba pripisati dejanju oddaje javnega naročila in sklenitvi pogodbe, ki izhaja iz tega.
That Member State contends that the act of awarding the contract leads, by itself, to the conclusion of the contract awarded, and that contract is treated as existing from the adoption of that act.
Ta država članica navaja, da samo dejanje oddaje javnega naročila učinkuje kot sklenitev pogodbe v zvezi s tem javnim naročilom, ki velja od njegovega sprejetja.
The act is subject to the formal requirement of notification, which has to be carried out before the contract can produce its effects in respect of the persons concerned.
Da bi učinkovala pogodba zoper zainteresirane stranke, jim je treba obvezno vročiti odločbo v zvezi z dejanjem.
It states that the finalisation of the contract, a mere administrative formality, is of only secondary importance to the act of awarding the contract.
Podrobneje navaja, da je preprosta upravna formalnost sklenitve pogodbe drugotna v primerjavi z dejanjem oddaje.
That finalisation is, however, a necessary condition for the performance of the contract concerned.
Vendar je ta sklenitev nujen pogoj za izvr�evanje zadevnega javnega naročila.
According to the Kingdom of Spain, the question whether the Law on public procurement complies with the review directive must be assessed with regard to the review proceedings which can be brought, first, prior to the act of awarding the contract and, second, against that act of awarding the contract itself.
Po mnenju Kraljevine Španije je treba skladnost zakona o javnih naročilih z direktivo o reviziji presojati po eni strani glede na zahteve za revizijo, ki se lahko vlagajo, pred dejanjem oddaje javnega naročila, in po drugi strani zoper samo dejanje oddaje.
That is, moreover, the conclusion of the judgment in Alcatel Austria and Others, which draws a distinction between the stage prior to the conclusion of the contract, in other words the stage before the award of the contract, to which Article 2(1) of the directive applies, and the stage subsequent to its conclusion, in other words the stage which follows the act of awarding the contract, to which the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of the directive applies.
Poleg tega to izhaja iz zgoraj omenjene sodbe v zadevi Alcatel Austria in drugi, ki je določila razlikovanje med fazo pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, to je faza pred oddajo javnega naročila, za katero velja člen 2(1) omenjene direktive, in fazo, ki sledi omenjeni sklenitvi, to je faza, ki sledi dejanju oddaje, za katero se uporabi člen 2(6), drugi pododstavek, istega besedila.
Spanish law is consistent, according to the Kingdom of Spain, with that distinction.
Torej naj bi bilo �pansko pravo v skladu s tem razlikovanjem.
Concerning, first, the measures which precede the award of the contract, the Kingdom of Spain states that a number of review proceedings are possible.
Kraljevina Španija je poudarila, prvič, da so namreč v zvezi z ukrepi pred oddajo javnega naročila mogoče nekatere zahteve za revizijo.
Concerning, second, that award itself, it states that the administrative decision prior
Drugič, v zvezi z oddajo je pojasnila, da se upravno odločbo, ki sledi, vroči vsem udeležencem javnega razpisa v desetih dneh po njenem
COMMISSION v SPAIN to that award is notified to all the participants in the tendering procedure in the 10 days following its adoption and that that decision, like any administrative act, may be the subject of review proceedings, pursuant to the law governing the common administrative procedure.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠPANIJI sprejetju in da je lahko ta povsem upravna odločba predmet zahteve za revizijo, v skladu z zakonom o splo�nem upravnem postopku.
That Member State further adds that the suspension of the contested act may be ordered as an interim measure.
Poleg tega je dodala, da se lahko v okviru začasnih ukrepov razglasi odložitev izpodbijanega dejanja.
Lastly, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the definitive conclusion of an act, and thus of a contract, does not preclude the possibility of bringing revocation proceedings against that act itself.
Nazadnje, Kraljevina Španija navaja, da dokončna sklenitev akta in torej pogodbe ne vpliva na nezmožnost vlaganja zahteve za razglasitev ničnosti zoper sam akt.
Those explanations are based on the interpretations in the caselaw of the national courts as to the effects which follow from the act of awarding the contract and the finalisation of the contract respectively, since those legal concepts are matters of national law.
Ta razlaga nujno temelji na razlagah nacionalne sodne prakse, ki se nana�ajo na dejanje oddaje in sklenitev pogodbe, ker ta pojma izhajata iz nacionalnega prava.
Thus, the arguments put forward by the Commission in support of the first and second pleas must be analysed in the light of the finding that, according to the law of the Member State in question, first, the act of awarding the contract leads automatically to the formation of the contract to which it relates and, accordingly, determines, of itself, the rights and duties of the parties and, second, the finalisation of that contract is a formality required exclusively so that the contract awarded can be performed, and cannot alter the contract or add to it.
Prav tako je treba analizirati trditve Komisije v podporo prvega in drugega očitka v skladu z ugotovitvijo, da v okviru prava zadevne države članice po eni strani dejanje oddaje javnega naročila samo ustanovi zadevno pogodbo in kot tako samo določa pravice in obveznosti strank ter je po drugi strani dokončanje te pogodbe le formalnost, ki izključno pogojuje izvr�evanje javnega naročila, ne da bi spreminjalo pogodbo ali povzročilo nove učinke.
According to recitals (1) and (2) in the preamble to the review directive, it seeks to reinforce existing arrangements, at both national and Community levels, for ensuring the effective application of Community directives on the award of public contracts, in particular at the stage where infringements can still be rectified.
Iz prve in druge uvodne izjave direktive o reviziji izhaja, da je usmerjena v krepitev obstoječih mehanizmov na ravni posamezne države kot tudi na ravni Skupnosti za uveljavljanje direktiv Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil, predvsem takrat, ko je �e mogoče odpraviti kr�itve.
In that regard, Article 1(1) of the review directive requires Member States to put in place review procedures which are effective and as rapid as possible against the decisions taken by the contracting authorities which infringe Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law.
Zato člen 1(1) direktive o reviziji nalaga državam članicam, da omogočijo učinkovito in zlasti čim hitrej�o revizijo zoper odločitve, ki so jih sprejeli naročniki in kr�ijo pravo Skupnosti na področju javnega naročanja ali nacionalne predpise o izvajanju tega prava.
It follows from the caselaw of the Court that the combined provisions of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(6) of the directive are to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to ensure that the contracting authority’s decision prior to the conclusion of the contract as to the bidder in a tender procedure with which it will conclude the contract is in all cases open to review in a procedure whereby an applicant may have that decision set aside if the relevant conditions are met, notwithstanding the possibility, once the contract has been concluded, of obtaining an award of damages (see Alcatel Austria and Others, paragraph 43).
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da je treba člen 2(1)(a) in (b) v povezavi z odstavkom 6, drugi pododstavek, omenjene direktive razlagati tako, da morajo države članice v zvezi z odločbo naročnika pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, s katero naročnik izbere ponudnika, udeleženega v postopku javnega naročila, in s katero sklene pogodbo, za vsak primer določiti revizijski postopek, ki bo vlagatelju zahtevka omogočal, da zahteva razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe, če bo izpolnjeval potrebne pogoje, ne glede na to, da je upravičen do od�kodnine zaradi sklenjene pogodbe (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Alcatel Austria in drugi, točka 43).
Moreover, the complete legal protection which must accordingly be ensured before the conclusion of the contract pursuant to Article 2(1) of the review directive presupposes, in particular, the duty to inform the tenderers of the award decision before the conclusion of the contract so that they may have a real possibility of initiating review proceedings.
Poleg tega iz popolnega pravnega varstva, ki ga je treba zagotoviti tudi pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, ob uporabi člena 2(1) direktive o reviziji zlasti izhaja obveznost vročitve odločbe o izbiri ponudnikom pred sklenitvijo pogodbe, da bi imeli resnično možnost zahtevanja revizije.
That same protection requires provision to be made for the unsuccessful tenderer to examine in sufficient time the question of whether the decision to award is valid.
V skladu s tem varstvom je treba predvideti možnost, da lahko neizbrani ponudnik v ustreznem času preuči veljavnost odločbe o oddaji javnega naročila.
In the light of the need to guarantee the effectiveness of the review directive, it follows that a reasonable period must pass between the moment when the award decision is communicated to the unsuccessful tenderers and the conclusion of the contract in order to allow them, inter alia, to bring an application for interim measures until the conclusion of the contract.
Ob upo�tevanju zahtev po polnem učinkovanju direktive o reviziji je treba omogočiti razumen rok med vročitvijo odločbe o oddaji javnega naročila neizbranim ponudnikom in sklenitvijo pogodbe, da bi zlasti omogočili vlaganje zahtev za začasne ukrepe, ki bodo veljali do omenjene sklenitve.
In this case, it must be pointed out that, first, it is not disputed that the Spanish legislation authorises review proceedings against acts of contracting authorities prior to the award of the public contract.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba najprej poudariti, da ni sporno, da �panska zakonodaja dovoljuje zahtevo za revizijo zoper dejanja naročnikov, ki se izvajajo pred oddajo javnega naročila.
Further, in accordance with Article 107(1) of the Law on the common administrative procedure, the persons concerned are able to initiate review proceedings against the procedural acts where they decide, directly or indirectly, the substance of the case, make it impossible to continue the procedure or to put up a defence, or cause irremediable harm to legitimate rights or interests.
Poleg tega lahko v skladu s členom 107(1) zakona o splo�nem upravnem postopku zainteresirane stranke vlagajo zahteve za revizijo zoper procesne akte, ki neposredno ali posredno zadevajo vsebino zadeve, ki onemogočajo nadaljevanje postopka ali obrambo ali povzročajo nepopravljivo �kodo oziroma posegajo v pravice ali upravičene interese.
In the context of those review proceedings, interim measures can be taken, in particular the suspension of the contested acts.
V okviru teh postopkov se lahko sprejmejo začasni ukrepi, zlasti odložitev izpodbijanjih dejanj.