natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)14 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 14. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d’État (Council of State) (Belgium), made by decision of 24 October 2006, received at the Court on 6 November 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-450/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Conseil d’État (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 24. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 6. novembra 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-450/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-450/06 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: R.
— the Austrian Government, by M. Fruhmann, acting as Agent,
– za avstrijsko vlado M. Fruhmann, zastopnik,
VAREC gives the following
VAREC izreka naslednjo
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 1(1) Direktive Sveta 89/665/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o uporabi revizijskih postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za preskrbo in javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 395, str.
33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p.
33) v različici iz Direktive Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, str.
1; ‘Directive 89/665’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 89/665).
The reference was made in proceedings between Varec SA (‘Varec’) and the Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Defence, concerning the award of a public contract for the supply of track links for ‘Leopard’ tanks.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med družbo Varec SA (v nadaljevanju: družba Varec) in državo Belgijo, ki jo zastopa ministre de la Défense (v nadaljevanju: minister za obrambo), glede oddaje javnega naročila za dobavo gosenic za tanke vrste leopard.
Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 provides:
Člen 1(1) Direktive 89/665 določa:
‘The Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, as regards contract award procedures falling within the scope of Directives 71/305/EEC,
„Države članice sprejmejo ukrepe, potrebne, da bi zagotovili v zvezi s postopki oddaje javnih naročil s področja Direktiv 71/305/EGS, 77/62/EGS in 92/50/EGS […],
77/62/EEC, and 92/50/EEC …, decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible in accordance with the conditions set out in the following Articles and, in particular, Article 2(7) on the grounds that such decisions have infringed Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-450/06 učinkovito in zlasti čim hitrej�o revizijo odločitev, ki so jih sprejeli naročniki skladno s pogoji, določenimi v naslednjih členih ter zlasti v členu 2(7) na podlagi obrazložitve, da so tak�ne odločitve kr�ile pravo Skupnosti na področju javnega naročanja ali nacionalne predpise o izvajanju tega prava.“
Article 33 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
Člen 33 Direktive Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 199, str.
1) repeals Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1977 L 13, p. 1), and provides that the references to that repealed directive are to be construed as references to Directive 93/36.
1) razveljavlja Direktivo Sveta 77/62/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1976 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL 1977, L 13, str.1) in določa, da se sklicevanje na razveljavljeno direktivo razlaga kot sklicevanje na Direktivo 93/36.
Similarly, Article 36 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
Prav tako člen 36 Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 199, str.
54) repeals Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1971 L 185, p.
54) razveljavlja Direktivo Sveta 71/305/EGS z dne 26. julija 1971 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil gradenj (UL L 185, str.
5), and provides that references to Directive 71/305 are to be construed as references to Directive 93/37.
5) in določa, da se sklicevanje nanjo razlaga kot sklicevanje na Direktivo 93/97.
Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 provides:
Člen 2(8) Direktive 89/665 določa:
‘Where bodies responsible for review procedures are not judicial in character, written reasons for their decisions shall always be given.
„Kadar organi, pristojni za revizijske postopke, po svoji naravi niso sodni, se vedno navedejo pisni razlogi za njihove odločitve.
Furthermore, in such a case, provision must be made to guarantee procedures whereby any allegedly illegal measure taken by the review body or any alleged defect in the exercise of the powers conferred on it can be the subject of judicial review or review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article [234 EC] and independent of both the contracting authority and the review body.
Poleg tega je v takem primeru treba določiti postopke, s katerimi je kakr�enkoli domnevno nezakoniti ukrep, ki ga sprejme revizijski organ, ali domnevna napaka pri izvr�evanju dodeljenih pristojnosti lahko predmet sodnega postopka ali revizije drugega organa, ki je sodi�če v smislu člena [234 ES] ter neodvisen od naročnika in tudi od revizijskega organa.
The members of such an independent body shall be appointed and leave office under the same conditions as members of the judiciary as regards the authority responsible for their appointment, their period of office, and their removal.
Člani takega neodvisnega organa se imenujejo in razre�ijo pod istimi pogoji kakor člani sodstva glede organa oblasti, odgovornega za njihovo imenovanje, mandat in razre�itev.
The independent body shall take its decisions following a procedure in which both sides are heard, and these decisions shall, by means determined by each Member State, be legally binding.’
Neodvisni organ sprejema svoje odločitve po postopku, v katerem sta zasli�ani obe strani, in te odločitve so s sredstvi, ki jih določi vsaka država članica, pravno zavezujoče.“
According to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/36, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 328, p.
Člen 7(1) Direktive 93/36, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997 (UL L 328, str.
1; ‘Directive 93/36’):
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 93/36), določa:
‘The contracting authority shall, within 15 days of the date on which the request is received, inform any eliminated candidate or tenderer of the reasons for rejection of his application or his tender and any tenderer who has made an admissible tender of the characteristics and relative advantages of the tender selected as well as the name of the successful tenderer.
„Naročnik obvesti v 15 dneh od datuma, ko je prejel pisno zahtevo, vse izločene kandidate ali ponudnike o razlogih za zavrnitev vloge ali ponudbe, ponudnike, ki so oddali dopustno ponudbo, pa o značilnostih in relativnih prednostih izbrane ponudbe, kakor tudi o imenu izbranega ponudnika.
However, contracting authorities may decide that certain information on the contract award, referred to in the preceding subparagraph, shall be withheld where release of such information would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest or would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular undertakings, public or private, or might prejudice fair competition between suppliers.’
Naročnik kljub temu lahko sprejme odločitev, da nekatere informacije o oddaji naročila iz predhodnega pododstavka zadrži, če bi tak�ne informacije ovirale izvr�evanje zakona ali bi bile drugače v nasprotju z zakonitimi gospodarskimi interesi nekega podjetja, javnega ali zasebnega, ali pa bi lahko posegale v lojalno konkurenco med dobavitelji.“
Article 9(3) of Directive 93/36 provides:
Člen 9(3) Direktive 93/36 določa:
‘Contracting authorities who have awarded a contract shall make known the result by means of a notice.
„Naročniki morajo po izbiri ponudnika rezultate javno objaviti.
However, certain information on the contract award may, in
Nekaterih podatkov v zvezi z oddanim naročilom se ne sme objaviti, kadar bi bila objava takih podatkov
2008 — CASE C-450/06 certain cases, not be published where release of such information would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to the public interest, would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular enterprises, public or private, or might prejudice fair competition between suppliers.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-450/06 lahko v nasprotju z zakonom ali javnim interesom, kadar bi to lahko �kodovalo legitimnim poslovnim interesom zadevnih podjetij, tako javnih kot zasebnih, in kadar bi to lahko oviralo po�teno konkurenco med dobavitelji.“
Article 15(2) of Directive 93/36 provides:
Člen 15(2) iste direktive določa:
‘The contracting authorities shall respect fully the confidential nature of any information furnished by the suppliers.’
„Naročniki morajo v celoti spo�tovati zaupnost podatkov, ki jih dobijo od ponudnikov.“
The provisions of Articles 7(1), 9(3) and 15(2) of Directive 93/36 have been substantially reproduced in Article 6, the fifth subparagraph of Article 35(4), and Article 41(3) respectively 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 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Določbe členov 7(1), 9(3) in 15(2) Direktive 93/36 so vsebinsko povzete v členih 6, 35(4), peti pododstavek, oziroma 41(3) Direktive 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev (UL L 134, str. 114).
Article 87 of the Decree of the Regent of 23 August 1948 establishing the procedure before the Administrative Section of the Conseil d’État (Moniteur belge of 23 to 24 August 1948, p.
Člen 87 Odloka regenta z dne 23. avgusta 1948, ki ureja postopek pred upravnim oddelkom Conseil d’État (Moniteur belge z dne 23.–24. avgusta 1948, str.
6821), provides:
6821), določa:
‘Parties, their advisers and the government commissioner may inspect the casefile at the registry.’
„Stranke, njihovi zastopniki in komisar vlade lahko v sodnem tajni�tvu vpogledajo v spis v zadevi.“
According to the third and fourth subparagraphs of Article 21 of the Coordinated Laws on the Conseil d’État of 12 January 1973 (Moniteur belge of 21 March 1973, p. 3461):
Člen 21, tretji in četrti odstavek, usklajenih zakonov o Conseil d’État z dne 12. januarja 1973 (Moniteur belge z dne 21. marca 1973, str.
‘Where the defendant fails to lodge the administrative file within the prescribed period, without prejudice to Article 21a, the facts alleged by the applicant shall be deemed to have been proven, unless they are manifestly inaccurate.
„Neupo�tevaje člen 21a se, če tožena stranka upravnega spisa ne predloži v za to določenem roku, dejstva, ki jih zatrjuje tožeča stranka, �tejejo za dokazana, razen če niso očitno netočna.
Where the administrative file is not in the possession of the defendant, he shall inform the Chamber seised of the action accordingly.
Če tožena stranka nima upravnega spisa, mora o tem obvestiti senat, ki odloča v njeni zadevi.
The Chamber may order that the administrative file be lodged, on penalty of a fine in accordance with Article 36.’
Slednji lahko v skladu z določbo člena 36 odredi predložitev upravnega spisa pod grožnjo denarne kazni.“
On 14 December 2001, the Belgian State initiated a contract award procedure in respect of the supply of track links for ‘Leopard’ tanks.
Država Belgija je 14. decembra 2001 začela postopek oddaje javnega naročila za dobavo gosenic za tanke vrste leopard.
When examining those tenders, the Belgian State considered that the tender submitted by Varec did not satisfy the technical selection criteria and that that tender was unlawful.
Država Belgija je po preučitvi obeh ponudb ocenila, da ponudba družbe Varec ne ustreza tehničnim pogojem ter da ni pravilna.
By contrast, it took the view that the tender submitted by Diehl satisfied all the selection criteria, that it was lawful and that its prices were normal.
Nasprotno pa je menila, da ponudba družba Diehl ustreza vsem pogojem, da je pravilna in v njej navedene cene običajne.
Consequently, the Belgian State awarded the contract to Diehl by decision of the Minister for Defence of 28 May 2002 (‘the award decision’).
Država Belgija je zato s sklepom ministra za obrambo z dne 28. maja 2002 (v nadaljevanju: sklep o oddaji naročila) naročilo oddala družbi Diehl.
2008 — CASE C-450/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-450/06
On 29 July 2002, Varec brought an action for annulment of the award decision before the Conseil d’État.
Družba Varec je 29. julija 2002 pred Conseil d’État vložila tožbo za razveljavitev sklepa o oddaji naročila.
Diehl was granted leave to intervene.
Družbi Diehl je bil priznan status intervenienta.
The file delivered to the Conseil d’État by the Belgian State did not include Diehl’s tender.
Spis, ki ga je država Belgija predložila Conseil d’État, ni vseboval ponudbe družbe Diehl.
Varec requested that that tender be added to the file.
Družba Varec je predlagala, naj se omenjena ponudba vloži v spis.
The same request was made by the Auditeur of the Conseil d’État who was responsible for drawing up a report (‘the Auditeur’).
Enako je predlagal tudi Auditeur Conseil d’État (v nadaljevanju: poročevalec), zadolžen za pripravo poročila.
On 17 December 2002, the Belgian State added Diehl’s tender to the file, explaining that neither the plans of the whole of the proposed track link nor those of its constituent parts were included.
Država Belgija je 17. decembra 2002 predložila ponudbo družbe Diehl, pri čemer je pojasnila, da v njej ni načrtov celotne sestave tankovske gosenice in tudi ne njenih posameznih členov.
It stated that these had been returned to Diehl in accordance with the specification and at Diehl’s request.
Navedla je, da je te listine v skladu z razpisno dokumentacijo in na zahtevo družbe Diehl slednji vrnila.
It further stated that that was why it could not place those documents on the file and that, if it was essential that they be included, it would be necessary to ask Diehl to provide them.
Dodala je, da listin zato ne more predložiti v spis in da je treba njihovo predložitev, če je ta nujna, zahtevati od družbe Diehl.
The Belgian State also observed that Varec and Diehl are in dispute about the intellectual property rights to the plans in question.
Država Belgija je tudi opomnila na nasprotujoča si stali�ča družb Varec in Diehl glede intelektualnih pravic, ki se navezujejo na zadevne načrte.
By letter of the same date, Diehl informed the Auditeur that the version of its tender that was placed on the file by the Belgian State contained confidential data and information, and that it was objecting on the ground that third parties, including Varec, would be able to peruse those confidential data and information relating to business secrets included in the tender.
Družba Diehl je s po�to z istega dne poročevalca obvestila, da njena ponudba, kot jo je v spis predložila država Belgija, vsebuje zaupne navedbe in podatke in da zato nasprotuje temu, da bi se lahko z njimi seznanile tretje osebe, vključno z družbo Varec, saj so z omenjenimi navedbami in podatki povezane v ponudbo vključene poslovne skrivnosti.
According to Diehl, certain passages in Annexes 4, 12 and 13 to its tender contain specific data concerning the detailed revisions of the relevant manufacturing plans and also the industrial process.
Družba Diehl je tako navedla, da nekateri deli prilog 4, 12 in 13 k ponudbi vsebujejo natančne podatke o najnovej�ih proizvodnih načrtih in postopku.
In his report of 23 February 2006, the Auditeur concluded that the award decision should be annulled on the ground that ‘in the absence of the defendant’s cooperation in the sound administration of justice and fair proceedings, the only possible sanction is the annulment of the administrative measure whose lawfulness is not established where documents are excluded from inter partes proceedings’.
V poročilu z dne 23. februarja 2006 je poročevalec predlagal, naj se sklep o oddaji naročila razveljavi, saj je „v primeru kr�itve dolžnosti sodelovanja nasprotne stranke pri zagotavljanju učinkovitega in pravičnega sojenja edina primerna sankcija razveljavitev upravnega akta, katerega zakonitost v postopku, v katerem so bile listine izvzete iz kontradiktorne obravnave, ni izkazana“.
The Belgian State challenged that conclusion and requested the Conseil d’État to rule on the issue of respecting the confidentiality of Diehl’s tender documents containing information relating to business secrets which had been placed on the file in the proceedings before that court.
Država Belgija je predlogu nasprotovala in predlagala, da se Conseil d’État izreče o vpra�anju varstva zaupnosti listin v ponudbi družbe Diehl, ki vsebujejo podatke, povezane s poslovnimi skrivnostmi družbe, in ki so bili v spis vloženi v okviru postopka pred omenjenim sodi�čem.
In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Conseil d’État je zato prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Must Article 1(1) of [Directive 89/665], read with Article 15(2) of [Directive 93/36] and Article 6 of [Directive 2004/18], be interpreted as meaning that the authority responsible for the appeal procedures provided for in that article must ensure confidentiality and observance of the business secrets contained in the files communicated to it by the parties to the case, including the contracting authority, whilst at the same time being entitled to apprise itself of such information and take it into consideration?’
„Ali je treba člen 1(1) Direktive Sveta 89/665 […], v povezavi s členom 15(2) Direktive […] 93/36 […] in členom 6 Direktive 2004/18 […], razlagati tako, da mora odgovorni organ v revizijskem postopku, določenem v tem členu, zagotoviti zaupnost in pravico do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti, ki jih vsebujejo spisi, ki mu jih predložijo stranke v zadevi – vključno z naročnikom – pri čemer se lahko sam seznani s tovrstnimi podatki in jih upo�teva?“
Varec submits that in order to resolve the dispute before the Conseil d’État it is not necessary for the Court to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling.
Družba Varec meni, da za re�itev spora pred Conseil d’État odgovor na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ni potreben.
In that regard, it must be observed that, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court.
Pri tem je treba opozoriti, da v okviru postopka, določenega v členu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, presoja zadevnih dejstev spada v pristojnost nacionalnega sodnika.
Similarly, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
Le nacionalni sodnik, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, presodi glede na posebnosti zadeve tako potrebo po izdaji predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdal sodbo, kot tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih predlaga Sodi�ču. Zato ker se predloženi vpra�anji nana�ata na razlago prava Skupnosti, je Sodi�če načeloma dolžno odločati (glej zlasti sodbe z dne 25. februarja 2003 v zadevi IKA, C-326/00, Recueil, str.
Nevertheless, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Case 244/80 Foglia [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21).
Vendar je Sodi�če presodilo tudi, da mora izjemoma, pri preverjanju lastne pristojnosti, preučiti okoli�čine, v katerih mu je nacionalno sodi�če zadevo predložilo (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 16. decembra 1981 v zadevi Foglia, 244/80, Recueil, str. 3045, točka 21).
It must be pointed out that that is not the case here.
V obravnavani zadevi ne gre za tak primer.
If the Conseil d’État follows the form of order proposed by the Auditeur, it will have to annul the award decision which is before it, without examining the substance of the dispute.
Ugotoviti je mogoče, da bo moralo Conseil d’État, če bo sledilo predlogu poročevalca, razveljaviti izpodbijani sklep o oddaji naročila, ne da bi zadevo obravnavalo meritorno.
On the other hand, if the provisions of Community law which the Conseil d’État seeks to have interpreted justify the confidential treatment of the documents of the file at issue in the main proceedings, it will be in a position to examine the substance of the dispute.
Nasprotno pa bo predložitveno sodi�če, če določbe prava Skupnosti, katerih razlago predlaga, upravičujejo zaupno ravnanje z določenimi deli spisa v postopku v glavni stvari, zadevo lahko obravnavalo meritorno.
For those reasons it may be concluded that the interpretation of those provisions is necessary for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Zaradi teh razlogov je mogoče izhajati iz tega, da je razlaga navedenih določb nujna za re�itev spora o glavni stvari.
In the question referred to the Court, the Conseil d’État refers both to Directive 93/36 and to Directive 2004/18.
Predložitveno sodi�če v vpra�anju, ki ga je predložilo Sodi�ču, omenja tako Direktivo 93/36 kot Direktivo 2004/18.
Since Directive 2004/18 has replaced Directive 93/36, it is necessary to establish which of the two directives is relevant to the examination of the question referred.
Ker je slednja nadomestila Direktivo 93/96, je treba najprej ugotoviti, katero izmed obeh je treba uporabiti pri obravnavi tega vpra�anja.
It must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, whereas substantive rules are usually interpreted as not applying, in principle, to situations existing before their entry into force (see Case C-201/04 Molenbergnatie [2006] ECR I-2049, paragraph 31 and the caselaw cited).
Spomniti je treba, da se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso postopkovna pravila običajno uporabljajo za vse spore, ki potekajo, ko ta pravila začnejo veljati, drugače kot pri pravilih materialnega prava, ki se običajno razlagajo tako, da se načeloma ne nana�ajo na položaje, ki so nastali pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti (glej sodbo z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Molenbergnatie, C-201/04, ZOdl., str. I-2049, točka 31, in tam navedeno sodno prakso).
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the right to the protection of confidential information.
Postopek v glavni stvari se nana�a na pravico do varstva zaupnih podatkov.
As the Advocate General noted in point 31 of her Opinion, such a right is in essence a substantive right, even if its application can have procedural consequences.
Kot opozarja generalna pravobranilka v točki 31 sklepnih predlogov, je ta pravica, čeprav ima postopkovne implikacije, v bistvu materialna pravica.