natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
791, holds that Regulation No 805/2004 on the European enforcement order for uncontested claims represents a change in the system of enforcement on the basis of foreign court decisions. Sujecki, B., ‘Das Europäische Mahnverfahren’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, No 23/2007, p.
791, govori o tem, da Uredba �t. 805/2004 o evropskem izvr�ilnem naslovu predstavlja spremembo v sistemu izvr�be na podlagi tujih sodnih odločb. Sujecki, B., Das Europäische Mahnverfahren, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, �t. 23/2007, str.
1622, points out that the procedure laid down in Regulation No 1896/2006 simplifies and speeds up the cross-border recovery of uncontested claims.
1622, poudarja, da se s postopkom iz Uredbe �t. 1896/2006 poenostavlja in pospe�uje čezmejna izterjava nespornih terjatev.
29 — Cited in footnote 28.30 — OJ 2004 L 143, p.
44/2001 je poleg člena 61(c) pravna podlaga tudi člen 67(1) PES, pri Uredbi �t.
35 In the present case, it is necessary first to take account of the object of the directive, the teleological interpretation of which will be of fundamental importance for resolving the question referred by the national court.
35V konkretnem primeru moramo namreč v prvi vrsti upo�tevati namen te direktive, zato bo ključnega pomena za odgovor na vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča teleolo�ka razlaga.
36 The directive must be interpreted in a way that safeguards its ef -fectiveness (effet utile).
36 Direktivo moramo razlagati na tak način, da z razlago zagotovimo njen polni učinek (effet utile).
37 retain their competence over enforcement procedures relating to enforcement solely within the Member State.
37 ki se nana�ajo samo na izvr�bo znotraj države članice, ohranijo v svoji pristojnosti.
The enforcement procedure is a balanced system, in which a change in a single component also affects the other components in that procedure.
Izvr�ilni postopek je uravnotežen sistem, pri katerem sprememba enega elementa vpliva tudi na druge elemente tega postopka.
On the other hand, as we shall see shortly, the Member States must comply with Community law when exercising their competence in that field.
Po drugi strani pa morajo države članice, kot bomo videli v nadaljevanju analize, pri izvajanju svojih pristojnosti na tem področju spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti.
Interpretation of Directive 2000/35
Razlaga Direktive 2000/35
35 — Since the reply to the question referred is far from being a foregone conclusion, such a case can be defined from the theoretical legal point of view as a ‘hard case’, in contrast to a ‘clear case’.
35 – Ker odgovor na zastavljeno vpra�anje ni popolnoma nedvoumen, lahko to zadevo s pravnoteoretičnega vidika označimo za „težek primer“ („hard case“) kot nasprotje „jasnega primera“ („clear case“). V tem smislu glej Hart, H.L.A., The Concept of Law (With a Postscript edited by Penelope A. Bulloch and Joseph Raz), 2. izdaja, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1994, str.
307, who asserts that in such situations courts rule according to their discretion, on the basis of which they make the law.
307, ki poudarja, da imajo v takih primerih sodniki diskrecijo, na podlagi katere ustvarjajo pravo. Drugače Dworkin, R., Hard Cases, Harvard Law Review, let. 88, 1975, str. 1075. Prim. tudi Alexy, R., A Theory of Legal Argumentation. The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1989, str.
8, who also relativises the concept of a ‘clear example’, in that its clarity is only apparent, since it is always possible to find arguments against the decision in the case in point.
8, ki relativizira tudi pojem „jasnega primera“, saj je njegova jasnost pravzaprav le navidezna glede na to, da je vedno mogoče najti argumente proti odločitvi v takem primeru.
As I have already stated, Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35 provides that an enforceable title for the recovery of unchallenged claims should normally be obtained within 90 days of lodging the application.
Kot je bilo že navedeno, člen 5(1) Direktive 2000/35 določa, da se izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve pridobi običajno v 90 dneh po vložitvi tožbe.
If a strictly linguistic interpretation were given to this article, the Community’s competence would cover the stage of obtaining the enforceable title, but the subsequent stage would come within the competence of the Member States.
Če ta člen razlagamo s strogo jezikovno razlago, pristojnost Skupnosti torej obsega fazo pridobitve izvr�ilnega naslova, faza, ki sledi pridobitvi izvr�ilnega naslova, pa je v pristojnosti držav članic.
34 However, I consider that Directive 2000/35 nevertheless conflicts with Italian legislation, which provides for execution against public authorities to be suspended for 120 days from the obtaining of
34Vendar pa menim, da Direktiva 2000/35 vseeno nasprotuje italijanski zakonodaji, ki določa odlog izvr�be proti javni upravi za 120 dni po pridobitvi izvr�ilnega
36 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro in Case C-64/05 P Sweden v Commission [2007] ECR I-11389, point 26, where the teleological and systematic interpretation prevailed over the literal interpretation, which did not provide a clear solution.
36 – Prim. sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Madura z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Švedska proti Komisiji (C-64/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-11389, točka 26), kjer sta teleolo�ka in sistematična razlaga prevladali nad dobesedno razlago, ki ni dala jasnega odgovora.
See also Delnoy, P., Élements de méthodologie juridique, 2nd edition, Larcier, Brussels, 2006, p.
Prim. tudi Delnoy, P., Élements de méthodologie juridique, 2. izdaja, Larcier, Bruselj 2006, str.
93, according to whom the clear text must also be interpreted, from which we can infer that a merely literal interpretation is not sufficient for a precise understanding of the text. Pechstein, M. and Drechsler, C., in Reisenhuber, K. (ed.), Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin, 2006, p.
93, ki poudarja, da je treba tudi jasno besedilo razlagati, iz česar lahko sklepamo, da zgolj besedna razlaga za pravilno razumevanje besedila ne zado�ča. Pechstein, M. in Drechsler, C., v Reisenhuber, K. (ur.), Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2006, str.
171, state that the Court often resorts to a teleological interpretation, primarily to ensure that the objectives of Community law are achieved.
171, poudarjata, da Sodi�če velikokrat uporablja teleolo�ko razlago predvsem zato, da zagotovi uresničevanje ciljev prava Skupnosti. Podobno Reisenhuber, K., v Reisenhuber, K. (ur.), Europäische Methodenlehre. Handbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis, De Gruyter Recht, Berlin 2006, str.
39The means of preventing late payment include the 90-day limit for obtaining an enforceable title for the recovery of uncontested claims provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35.
39Enega od instrumentov za preprečevanje zamud pri plačilih predstavlja tudi 90-dnevni rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova za izterjavo nespornih terjatev, določen v členu 5(1) Direktive 2000/35.
The object of Directive 2000/35 is to prevent late payment in commercial transactions, thereby eliminating obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market that arise precisely because of such late payment.
Namen Direktive 2000/35 je preprečevati zamude pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih, da bi se s tem odstranile ovire za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga, ki nastajajo zaradi teh zamud.
38In this regard, recital 5 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35 states that late payment represents an increasingly serious obstacle for the success of the single market.
38V zvezi s tem peta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa, da zamude pri plačilih predstavljajo vedno resnej�o oviro za uspeh enotnega trga.
Recitals 9 and 10 also point out that commercial transactions are considerably limited because of the differences between payment
Tudi v deveti in deseti uvodni izjavi je poudarjeno, da je zaradi razlik med državami članicami glede pravil in prakse plačevanja trgovinsko poslovanje
Directive 2000/35 is intended to safeguard small and medium-sized undertakings, in particular, from late payment.
Direktiva 2000/35 želi pred zamudami pri plačilih za�čititi predvsem mala in srednje velika podjetja.
To that effect, recital 7 in the preamble to the direct- ive indicates that ‘heavy administrative and financial burdens are placed on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones’, as a result of late payment and that this is ‘a major cause of insolvencies’.
V tem smislu sedma uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 opozarja, da so zaradi zamud pri plačilih „podjetja, zlasti mala in srednje velika, administrativno in finančno zelo obremenjena“ in da je to „poglavitni vzrok plačilne nesposobnosti, ki ogroža preživetje podjetij“.
Such businesses, which have a crucial role in increasing the
Ta podjetja, ki so ključnega pomena za gospodarsko rast
39 — In order to achieve that objective, the directive was adopted under Article 95 EC, which can serve as the legal basis of a Community provision only when its purpose is to contribute effectively to creating and improving the conditions necessary for the functioning of the internal market and to eliminating obstacles to the free movement of goods or the freedom to provide services or to removing distortions in competition.
39 – Zaradi doseganja tega cilja je bila direktiva sprejeta na podlagi člena 95 ES, ki je lahko pravna podlaga za predpis Skupnosti le takrat, ko je njegov namen dejansko prispevati k vzpostavitvi ter izbolj�anju pogojev delovanja notranjega trga in k odstranitvi ovir za prosti pretok blaga ali storitev ali k preprečevanju izkrivljanja konkurence.
Measures that only marginally improve the conditions necessary for the functioning of the internal market cannot be adopted on the basis of the article in question.
Na podlagi tega člena ni mogoče sprejeti predpisov, ki imajo zgolj postranski učinek na izbolj�anje pogojev delovanja notranjega trga. Glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 10. decembra 2002 v zadevi The Queen proti Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (C-491/01, Recueil, str.
See also my Opinion in Case C-404/06 Quelle [2008] ECR I-2685, point 54.
Glej tudi moje sklepne predloge z dne 15. novembra 2007 v zadevi Quelle (C-404/06, ZOdl., str.
In the literature, see, for example, Kahl, W., in Calliess, C. and Ruffert, M. (eds), op. cit., commentary on Article 95 EC, p. 1262; Pipkorn, J., Bardenhewer-Rating, A. and Taschner, H.C., in von der Groeben, H. and Schwarze, J. (eds), op. cit., Vol.
I-2685, točka 54). V teoriji glej, na primer, Kahl, W., v Calliess, C., Ruffert, M. (ur.), EUV/EGV. Das Verfassungs -recht der Europäischen Union mit Europäischer Grund -rechtecharta. Kommentar, 3. izdaja, Beck, München 2007, komentar k členu 95, str. 1262; Pipkorn, J., Bardenhewer-Rating, A., Taschner, H. C., v von der Groeben, H., Schwarze, J. (ur.), Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 6. izdaja, Nomos, Baden-Baden 2003, 2. zvezek, komentar k členu 95, str.
1405, paragraph 7.
1405, točka 7.
The Commis- sion’s study of the effectiveness of Community legislation regarding late payment 44 reveals that the worst payers are in fact the governments of several Member States.
43Iz �tudije Komisije o učinkovitosti zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju zamud pri plačilih 44izhaja, da so prav vlade v �tevilnih državah članicah najslab�i plačniki.
45 economic growth of the Community, 40are those most affected by late payment because in situations of this kind they do not have sufficient funds to finance themselves over the long term.
v Skupnosti, 40so zaradi zamud pri plačilih najbolj prizadeta, saj nimajo dovolj finančnih sredstev, da bi se v takih primerih dolgoročno financirala.
Small and medium-sized undertakings raise finance mainly in the form of short-term credit, so that in most cases they cannot survive the pressure of late payment and consequently are often forced into bankruptcy. 41
Majhna in srednje velika podjetja se primarno financirajo s kratkoročnimi krediti, zato velikokrat ne zdržijo pritiskov zamudnih plačil, zaradi česar morajo pogosto razglasiti stečaj. 41
The disputed Italian legislation provides that a creditor in possession of an enforceable title issued against a public authority, duly obtained in accordance with Direct- ive 2000/35 within 90 days, cannot proceed to forced execution before 120 days have elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the public authority.
Sporna italijanska zakonodaja določa, da mora izvr�ilni naslov proti organom javne uprave, ki je bil veljavno pridobljen v skladu z Direktivo 2000/35 v 90 dneh, ostati neizvr�ljiv �e 120 dni od vročitve tega izvr�ilnega naslova organom javne uprave.
Under that provision, the procedures necessary for forced execution can be carried out during that period, but execution itself may not be commenced.
V skladu s to določbo se lahko v tem času opravljajo postopki, potrebni za izvr�bo, sama izvr�ba pa se ne more začeti.
In practice, that provision would have the same effects as if it were laid down that the creditor should obtain an enforceable title within 210 days of lodging his action or
Ta določba v praksi učinkuje enako, kakor če bi bilo določeno, da upnik izvr�ilni naslov pridobi v 210 dneh od vložitve tožbe ali zahteve pri
The objective of Directive 2000/35 is to prevent late payment in all commercial transactions, including those in which the debtors are public authorities.
Namen Direktive 2000/35 je preprečevati zamude pri plačilih v vseh trgovinskih poslih, tudi v tistih, kjer so dolžniki organi javne uprave.
This means that its objective is also to prevent late payment in public procurement, as demonstrated by recital 4 in the preamble to the directive.
To pomeni, da je njen namen preprečevati tudi zamude pri plačilih v okviru javnih naročil, kakor nakazuje četrta uvodna izjava te direktive.
42In that context, the directive employs the concept of ‘public authority’, which it defines broadly; Article 2(1) identifies ‘public authority’ as meaning ‘any contracting authority or entity, as defined by the Public
42 Direktiva v zvezi s tem uporablja pojem „državni organi“, ki ga opredeljuje �iroko; „državne organe“ v členu 2(1) enači z „naročniki, kot jih določajo direktive o javnih
40 — This was emphasised, for example, in the conclusions of the European Council of Brussels of 23 and 24 March 2006, 7775/1/06 REV 1, p.
40 – To je poudarjeno, na primer, v sklepih Evropskega sveta v Bruslju 23. in 24. marca 2006, 7775/1/06 REV 1, str.
8, point 28, available at http://www. consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/ en/ec/89013.pdf.
8, točka 28, ki so dostopni na http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/89013.pdf.
43 — 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.
43 – Direktiva Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, 24.7.1992, str.
1); Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
1); Direktiva Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga (UL L 199, 9.8.1993, str.
1); 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.
1); Direktiva Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 199, 9.8.1993, str.
54); and Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).
54) in Direktiva Sveta 93/38/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov naročanja naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem, transportnem in telekomunikacijskem sektorju (UL L 199, 9.8.1993, str. 84).
42 — In that regard, recital 4 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35 refers to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Green Paper entitled Public procurement in the European Union: Exploring the way forward’ (OJ 1997 C 287, p.
42 – Četrta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 se v tej zvezi sklicuje na mnenje Ekonomsko-socialnega odbora o ‚Zeleni knjigi, naslovljeni Javna naročila v Evropski uniji: Raziskovanje poti naprej‘ (UL C 287, 22.9.1997, str.
92), in which the Committee points, inter alia, to the problem of late payment in public procurement procedures.
92), v katerem Ekonomskosocialni odbor med drugim opozarja na problem zamud pri plačilih v postopkih javnega naročanja.
The short period of 90 days for obtaining an enforceable title, as laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35, thus becomes meaningless.
Zato kratek 90-dnevni rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova, določen v členu 5(1) Direktive 2000/35, izgubi svoj smisel.
Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/35 is one of the provisions of the directive that make reference to the national legal orders.
Člen 5(1) Direktive 2000/35 sicer spada med tiste določbe direktive, ki napotujejo na uporabo nacionalne ureditve.
Viewed from that angle, it can be likened to Article 4(1) of the same directive, which relates to retention of title and which the Court addressed in Commission v Italy.
V tem pogledu ga lahko primerjamo s členom 4(1) te direktive, ki se nana�a na pridržek lastninske pravice in ki ga je Sodi�če obravnavalo v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji.
46In that case, which concerned the question whether the retention of title clause must be confirmed on individual invoices for successive supplies bearing a specific date, the Court held that resolution of the question should be left to national legislation.
46V zadevi Komisija proti Italiji je Sodi�če ureditev vpra�anja, ali je treba klavzulo o pridržku lastninske pravice potrditi na vsakem računu za zaporedne dobave z določenim datumom, prepustilo nacionalnemu pravu.
In that light, it could perhaps be considered that the solution to the question in the present case could also be left to national legislation.
V luči tega bi morda lahko argumentirali, da je treba tudi ureditev vpra�anja v konkretnem primeru prepustiti nacionalnemu pravu.
However, the questions to be resolved in the two cases differ considerably.
Vendar pa se problematiki obeh zadev bistveno razlikujeta.
The Italian legislation at issue in Commission v Italy governed only the effectiveness of the retention of title clause; it therefore established one of the characteristics of that clause.
Italijanska zakonodaja v navedeni zadevi Komisija proti Italiji je urejala le učinkovanje klavzule o pridržku lastninske pravice, določala je torej eno od značilnosti te klavzule.
In the present case, by contrast, the Italian legislation does not establish the characteristics necessary for obtaining the enforceable title but nullifies the short period for obtaining it.
Italijanska zakonodaja v konkretnem primeru pa ne določa značilnosti pridobitve izvr�ilnega naslova, temveč izniči kratek rok za njegovo pridobitev.
The Italian legislation is contrary to the object of Directive 2000/35, not least because it treats public authorities more favourably than businesses.
Italijanska zakonodaja nasprotuje namenu Direktive 2000/35 tudi zato, ker privilegira organe javne uprave v primerjavi s podjetji.
In that way, it makes effective protection impossible, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, and impedes prompt payment under public contracts.
S tem, po eni strani, onemogoči učinkovito za�čito predvsem malih in srednje velikih podjetij in, po drugi strani, preprečuje pravočasna plačila v okviru javnih naročil. Italijanska vlada navaja, da je privilegirano
From that perspective, it is also necessary to interpret recital 15 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35, which provides, inter alia, that the directive does not regulate the conditions under which forced execution can be stopped or suspended.
V tej luči moramo razlagati tudi petnajsto uvodno izjavo Direktive 2000/35, ki med drugim določa, da ta direktiva ne ureja pogojev, pod katerimi se prisilno izvr�bo izvr�ilnega naslova lahko ustavi ali zadrži.
The Italian Government maintains that the deferment of execution against the public authorities comes within the scope of the suspension of execution within the meaning of recital 15.
Italijanska vlada navaja, da gre v primeru odloga izvr�be proti državni upravi za zadržanje izvr�be v smislu petnajste uvodne izjave Direktive 2000/35.
That argument cannot be accepted.
Tega argumenta ni mogoče sprejeti.
As with the interpretation of Article 5(1), it can also be stated with reference to recital 15 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35 that the Member States are free to determine the conditions for the cancellation or suspension of execution, but those conditions cannot be established in a way that negates the effectiveness of the provisions of the directive.
Podobno kot v primeru razlage člena 5(1) lahko tudi v zvezi s petnajsto uvodno izjavo Direktive 2000/35 navedemo, da imajo države članice sicer proste roke pri določanju pogojev za ustavitev ali zadržanje izvr�be, vendar teh pogojev ne smejo določiti na tak način, da bi s tem onemogočile učinkovito uporabo določb direktive.
That interpretation of Directive 2000/35 does not interfere with the general competence of the Member States to enact national legislation establishing the conditions for the cancellation or suspension of execution.
S tako razlago Direktive 2000/35 nikakor ne posežemo v splo�no pristojnost držav članic, da v nacionalnem pravu določijo pogoje za ustavitev ali zadržanje izvr�be.
47In that regard, I would like to point out that Italy amended the period for the suspension of execution, increasing it from the original 60 days to the current 120 days on 23 December 2000, that is to say six months after Directive 2000/35 was adopted 48 and during the period for its transposition, set to end on 8 August 2002.
47V zvezi s tem naj navedem, da je Italija prvotni 60-dnevni rok za odlog izvr�be podalj�ala na 120 dni 23. decembra 2000, torej �est mesecev po sprejetju Direktive 2000/35 48in �e v roku za prenos le-te, ki se je iztekel 8. avgusta 2002.
49Italy’s conduct could thus be defined as circumvention of the objective of the direct- ive, and therefore as conduct in fraudem legis agere.
49Ravnanje Italije lahko zato opredelimo kot obid namena direktive, torej ravnanje in fraudem legis agere.
50Under Article 249(3) EC, the Member States are free to choose the form and methods necessary for the transposition of a directive but are bound as to the result to be achieved.
50 Ob samem prenosu direktive imajo države članice na podlagi člena 249(3) ES sicer svobodo pri izbiri oblike in metod prenosa direktive, vendar je direktiva zanje zavezujoča glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči.
In accordance with settled caselaw, the Member States are required to transpose the directive in a manner that does not authorities is justified by overriding public interest considerations, because the postponement of execution ensures proper operation of the public authorities.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso morajo države članice direktivo prenesti na tak način, da zagotovijo njen polni učinek (effet utile) 51in da se pri obravnavanje organov javne uprave upravičeno z nujnimi razlogi javnega interesa, saj se z odlogom izvr�be omogoča normalno delovanje javne uprave.
That argument cannot justify the Italian legislation at issue.
Ta argument ne more upravičiti sporne nacionalne zakonodaje.
By lengthening payment periods, public authorities in fact retain on loan the money of their creditors, who should receive it when the payment period expires.
S podalj�evanjem roka za plačilo si organi javne uprave od svojih upnikov pravzaprav izposojajo denar, ki ga tem upnikom dolgujejo že od poteka roka za plačilo dolga.