natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In particular, they are to take account of the volume of energy generated or material products produced in relation to the quantity of waste incinerated in the plant in question and the stability or continuity of that production.
Zlasti je treba upo�tevati količino proizvedene energije ali izdelkov glede na količino sežganih odpadkov v obravnavani napravi ter stabilnost in nepretrganost te proizvodnje.
Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the second question must be that it is on the basis of its main purpose that a plant is to be classified as an ‘incineration plant’ or a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) and (5) of Direct- ive 2000/76.
Glede na navedeno je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da se mora naprava glede na svoj glavni namen opredeliti kot „sežigalnica“ ali „naprava za sosežig“ v smislu člena 3, točki 4 in 5, Direktive 2000/76.
It is for the competent authorities to identify that purpose on the basis of an assessment of the facts existing at the time at which that assessment is carried out.
Pristojni organi morajo ugotoviti ta namen na podlagi presoje dejstev, ki obstajajo v času te presoje.
For the purposes of applying Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, where a co-generation plant comprises a number of boilers, each boiler and its associated equipment is to be regarded as constituting a separate plant.
Pri uporabi Direktive 2000/76/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 4. decembra 2000 o sežiganju odpadkov je treba, ko ima toplarna več kotlov, vsak kotel ter pripadajočo opremo obravnavati kot ločeno napravo.
It is on the basis of its main purpose that a plant is to be classified as an ‘incineration plant’ or a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76.
Naprava se mora glede na svoj glavni namen opredeliti kot „sežigalnica“ ali „naprava za sosežig“ v smislu člena 3, točki 4 in 5, Direktive 2000/76.
In the context of such an assessment, account must be taken, in particular, of the volume of energy generated or material products produced by the plant in question in relation to the quantity of waste incinerated in that plant and the stability and continuity of that production.
V okviru take presoje je treba upoštevati zlasti z zadevno napravo proizvedeno količino energije ali izdelkov glede na količino sežganih odpadkov v tej napravi ter stabilnost in nepretrganost te proizvodnje.
Case C-265/07
Zadeva C-265/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale civile di Roma)
(Commercial transactions — Directive 2000/35/EC — Combating of late payment — Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims)
„Trgovinski posli – Direktiva 2000/35/ES – Boj proti zamudam pri plačilih – Postopek izterjave nespornih terjatev“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 11 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Trstenjak, predstavljeni 24. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Combating late payments in commercial transactions — Direct- ive 2000/35 — Procedures for recovery of unchallenged claims
Približevanje zakonodaj – Boj proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih – Direktiva 2000/35 – Postopek izterjave nespornih terjatev
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2000/35, Art. 5)
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2000/35, člen 5)
SUMMARY — CASE C-265/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-265/07
Directive 2000/35 on combating late payments in commercial transactions harmonises only the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained, but does not govern forced execution procedures, which remain subject to the national law of the Member States.
Z Direktivo 2000/35 je namreč v zvezi s postopkom izterjave nespornih terjatev usklajen le rok za pridobitev navedenega izvr�ilnega naslova, ne da bi bil urejen postopek prisilne izvr�be, ki je �e vedno podvržen nacionalnemu pravu držav članic.
Directive 2000/35 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title in respect of an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on the authority.
Direktivo 2000/35 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih je treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje nacionalni določbi, na podlagi katere upnik, ki je pridobil izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve do javne uprave, nastale na podlagi trgovinskega posla, ne more začeti izvr�be proti tej upravi pred potekom 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova navedeni upravi.
(see paras 18, 24, operative part)
(Glej točki 18 in 24 ter izrek.)
In the present case, the national court asks whether Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment
V četrti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2000/35 je določeno:
Recital 4 in the preamble to Direct- ive 2000/35 states that: in commercial transactions (‘Direct- ive 2000/35’) 2precludes national legislation under which the forced execution of unchallenged claims may be initiated against public authorities only after a period of 120 days has elapsed from the date on which the enforceable title was served on the public authority.
Predložitveno sodi�če v tej zadevi spra�uje, ali Direktiva 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 2000/35) 2nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, v skladu s katero se izvr�ba nespornih terjatev proti javni upravi lahko izvede �ele po poteku 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova javni upravi.
‘On 29 May 1997 the Economic and Social Committee adopted an opinion on the Commission’s Green Paper on Public procurement in the European Union: Exploring the way forward …’
„Dne 29. maja 1997 je Ekonomskosocialni odbor sprejel mnenje o Zeleni knjigi Komisije o javnih naročilih v Evropski uniji: Razis -kovanje poti naprej […].“
Recital 5 states that:
Peta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa:
That question was raised in enforcement proceedings brought before the Tribunale civile di Roma (Rome Civil District Court) by the company Caffaro Srl (‘Caffaro’) against Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C (the ‘USL’) under an enforceable title obtained by Caffaro in accordance with the national legislation incorporating Directive 2000/35 into national law.
To vpra�anje je bilo zastavljeno v izvr�ilnem postopku pred Tribunale civile di Roma, ki ga je sprožila družba Caffaro s.r.l. (v nadaljevanju: Caffaro) proti javnemu komunalnemu podjetju v Rimu, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C (v nadaljevanju: USL), na podlagi izvr�ilnega naslova, ki ga je Caffaro pridobil v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, ki Direktivo 2000/35 prena�a v nacionalno pravo.
‘On 4 June 1997 the Commission published an action plan for the single market, which underlined that late payment represents an increasingly serious obstacle for the success of the single market.’
„Dne 4. junija 1997 je Komisija objavila načrt ukrepanja za enotni trg, v katerem je poudarila, da zamuda pri plačilih predstavlja vedno resnej�o oviro za uspeh enotnega trga.“
Treaty as entrepreneurs should be able to trade throughout the internal market under conditions which ensure that transborder operations do not entail greater risks than domestic sales.
Sedma uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa: da trgujejo na celotnem notranjem trgu v razmerah, ki zagotavljajo, da čezmejno poslovanje ne pomeni večjega tveganja kot domači promet.
Distortions of competition would ensue if substantially different rules applied to domestic and transborder operations.’
Če bi za domače in čezmejno poslovanje veljala bistveno drugačna pravila, bi pri�lo do izkrivljanja konkurence.“
‘Heavy administrative and financial burdens are placed on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, as a result of excessive payment periods and late payment.
„Zaradi predolgih rokov in zamud pri plačilih so podjetja, zlasti mala in srednje velika, administrativno in finančno zelo obremenjena.
Moreover, these problems are a major cause of insolvencies threatening the survival of businesses and result in numerous job losses.’
Še več, ti problemi so poglavitni vzrok plačilne nesposobnosti, ki ogroža preživetje podjetij, posledica pa je izguba �tevilnih delovnih mest.“
Recitals 9 and 10 state that:
V deveti in deseti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2000/35 je določeno:
‘(9) The differences between payment rules and practices in the Member States constitute an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market.
„Ta direktiva samo opredeljuje izraz ‚izvr�ilni naslov‘, ne ureja pa različnih postopkov prisilne izvr�be takega naslova in pogojev, pod katerimi se prisilno izvr�bo takega naslova lahko ustavi ali zadrži.“
‘This Directive only defines the term “enforceable title” but does not regulate the various procedures of forced execution of such a title and the conditions under which forced execution of such a title can be stopped or suspended.’
„(9) Razlike med državami članicami glede pravil in prakse plačevanja ovirajo pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
(10) This has the effect of considerably limiting commercial transactions between Member States.
(10) Posledica je znatno omejeno trgovinsko poslovanje med državami članicami.
This is in contradiction with Article 14 of the
To je v nasprotju s členom 14 Pogodbe, saj bi moralo biti podjetnikom omogočeno,
Recital 22 states:
Dvaindvajseta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa:
‘This Directive should regulate all commercial transactions irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities, having regard to the fact that the latter handle a considerable volume of payments to business.
„Ta direktiva bi morala urejati vse trgovinske posle, ne glede na to, ali potekajo med zasebnimi ali javnimi podjetji ali med podjetji in državnimi organi, ob upo�tevanju, da zadnji upravljajo z znatnim obsegom plačil podjetjem.
It should therefore also regulate all commercial transactions between main contractors and their suppliers and subcontractors.’
Zato bi morala urejati tudi vse trgovinske posle med glavnimi izvajalci in njihovimi dobavitelji in podizvajalci.“
Article 5 of Directive 2000/35, headed ‘Recovery procedures for unchallenged claims’, provides as follows:
Triindvajseta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa:
The respective national legislation, regulations and administrative provisions shall
Člen 2 Direktive 2000/35, ki vsebuje opredelitve, v petem odstavku določa:
Article 2 of Directive 2000/35 sets out definitions; paragraph 5 thereof provides as follows:
Države članice opravljajo to dolžnost v skladu s svojimi nacionalnimi zakoni ali drugimi predpisi.
Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/35 reads as follows: apply the same conditions for all credit- ors who are established in the European Community.
V členu 6(2) Direktive 2000/35 je določeno:
The 90 calendar day period referred to in paragraph 1 shall not include the following:
Rok 90 koledarskih dni iz odstavka 1 ne vključuje naslednjega:
‘Member States may maintain or bring into force provisions which are more favourable to the creditor than the provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.’
„Države članice lahko obdržijo ali sprejmejo določbe, ki so bolj ugodne za upnika kot določbe, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo.“
(a) periods for service of documents;
(a) rokov za vročitev listin;
B — National law
B – Italijansko pravo
(b) any delays caused by the creditor, such as periods devoted to correcting applications.
(b) zamud, ki jih povzroči upnik, kot je čas popravila iz zahteve.
Directive 2000/35 was implemented in the Italian legal order by means of Legislative Decree No 231 of 9 October 2002 (‘Legislative Decree No 231/2002’).
Direktiva 2000/35 je bila v italijansko pravo prenesena z zakonodajnim dekretom z dne 9. oktobra 2002, �t. 231 (v nadaljevanju: zakonodajni dekret �t. 231/2002).
This Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and [the] Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.’ 3
Ta člen ne posega v določbe Bruseljske konvencije o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.“ 3
CAFFARO means of Article 147 of Law No 388/2000, provides as follows:
669/1996, kakor je bil spremenjen s členom 147 zakona �t. 388/2000, tako določa:
According to the order for reference, in Italy the procedure for obtaining an enforceable title under Article 641 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows. Within 30 days of the lodging of the application the court delivers the decree ordering the debtor to pay the debt.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa tako izhaja, da postopek pridobitve izvr�ilnega naslova v skladu s členom 641 Zakona o civilnem postopku v Italiji poteka na naslednji način: po vložitvi tožbe sodi�če v tridesetih dneh izda sklep, s katerim dolžniku naloži plačilo dolga.
The decree is served within about 10 days.
Vročitev tega sklepa se opravi približno v desetih dneh.
The decree lays down that the debtor must make the payment within 40 days or challenge the order within the same timelimit.
V sklepu je navedeno, da mora dolžnik dolg plačati v �tiridesetih dneh ali pa v tem času vložiti ugovor.
If within that period the debtor does not challenge the order or pay the debt, upon expiry of the period the creditor obtains the enforceable title for forced execution of the acknowledged claim.
Če dolžnik v tem času niti ne vloži ugovora niti ne plača dolga, po poteku tega roka upnik pridobi izvr�ilni naslov za izvr�bo dolgovane terjatve.
A creditor intending to take enforcement action must serve the enforceable title on the debtor.
Upnik mora izvr�ilni naslov vročiti dolžniku, ko na njegovi podlagi zahteva izvr�bo.
‘State authorities and non-economic public bodies shall complete the procedures for the execution of court rulings and arbitration awards having executive effect and entailing an obligation to pay sums of money within 120 days of service of the enforceable title.
„Upravni organi države in javni neekonomski organi zaključijo postopke za izvr�bo sodnih odločb in izvr�ljivih arbitražnih odločb, ki vsebujejo obveznost plačila določene vsote denarja, v 120 dneh, �teto od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova.
Before expiry of that period the creditor shall not be entitled to proceed to forced execution against the said authorities and bodies nor may enforcement orders be put in place.’
Pred iztekom tega roka upnik nima pravice začeti izvr�be proti zgoraj navedenim upravnim in drugim organom, pa tudi izvr�ilni akt ne more biti izdan.“
Article 147 of Law
Člen 147 zakona �t.
The creditor, Caffaro, brought an action in the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) for forced execution against the debtor USL on the basis of an unchallenged claim relating to a commercial transaction.
Upnik Caffaro je pred Tribunale ordinario di Roma sprožil postopek prisilne izvr�be proti dolžniku USL v zvezi z nesporno terjatvijo, nastalo v trgovinskem poslu.
In the proceedings before the national court, the creditor obtained an enforceable title within the meaning of Legislative Decree No 231/2002 which transposed Directive
V postopku pred nacionalnim sodi�čem je upnik pridobil izvr�ilni naslov v skladu z zakonodajnim dekretom �t. 231/2002, ki Direktivo 2000/35 prena�a v italijansko
In view of the circumstances, the national court decided by an order of 21 May 2007 to stay the proceedings and to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Ker se je izvr�ba izvedla z rubežem dolžnikovih sredstev, ki jih je imel dolžnik pri Banca di Roma, je bil izvr�ilni naslov tega dne vročen tudi banki.
The national court did not formulate the question explicitly, but on the basis of its various pronouncements the question can be posed as follows:
Na zahtevo dolžnika je bil rubež izveden 4. aprila 2005 in takrat je bilo dolžniku in Banca di Roma vročeno tudi vabilo na obravnavo.
2000/35 into Italian law. The enforceable title was served on the debtor on 6 December 2004.
vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova javni upravi, v skladu z Direktivo 2000/35.
Forced execution was effected by way of the attachment of sums of money that the debtor held at Banca di Roma, and for that reason the enforceable title was also served on the latter on the same date.
V teh okoli�činah je predložitveno sodi�če s sklepom z dne 21. maja 2007 odločilo, da prekine odločanje in Sodi�ču predloži vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje.
At the request of the debtor, the attachment was effected on 4 April 2005 and on that date a summons to appear in court was served on the debtor and Banca di Roma.
Nacionalno sodi�če vpra�anja sicer ni izrecno formuliralo, vendar lahko glede na vse navedbe tega sodi�ča vpra�anje oblikujemo tako:
‘Must Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996, under which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title relating to an unchallenged payment owed by a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the said authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the said enforceable title on the authority?’
„Ali je treba Direktivo 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbi nacionalne zakonodaje, kot je člen 14 zakonskega dekreta �t. 669/1996, na podlagi katerega upnik, ki je pridobil izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve, ki jo javna uprava dolguje na podlagi trgovinskega posla, ne more zahtevati izvr�be proti navedeni upravi pred potekom 120-dnev-nega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova tej upravi?“
The creditor, the debtor and Banca di Roma, with which the debtor held sums of money, were summoned to appear at a hearing on 13 June 2006, which was set in the course of enforcement proceedings.
V izvr�ilnem postopku je bila 13. junija 2006 razpisana obravnava, na katero so bili vabljeni upnik, dolžnik in Banca di Roma, pri kateri je imel dolžnik sredstva.
At the hearing, Banca di Roma confirmed that it held sums of money belonging to the debtor and stated that they had been frozen in accordance with the attachment order.
Na obravnavi je Banca di Roma potrdila, da ima dolžnik pri njej sredstva in da je bil rubež izveden.
At the same hearing, the national court noted that the attachment order had been effected before expiry of the period of 120 days from service of the enforceable title, the period laid down for enforcement against public authorities.
Na tej obravnavi je predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da je bil rubež izveden pred potekom 120 dni od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova, ki mora poteči pred začetkom izvr�be proti organom javne uprave.
The court also noted that, in accordance with national law, the attachment order could be declared void.
Ugotovilo je, da bi se lahko v tem primeru v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo rubež razglasil za ničnega.
IV — Proceedings before the Court
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem
In so finding, the national court cast doubt on the compatibility of the national legislation, under which enforcement against public authorities can be effected only after 120 days have elapsed since service of the
Ob tem je predložitveno sodi�če podvomilo, ali je nacionalna zakonodaja, v skladu s katero se izvr�ba proti javni upravi lahko izvede �ele po poteku 120-dnevnega roka od
The order for reference was received by the Court on 4 June 2007.
Predložitveni sklep je na Sodi�če prispel 4. junija 2007.
In the course of the written procedure, observations were
V pisnem postopku so stali�ča predložili Caffaro, italijanska vlada
At the hearing on 13 March 2008, Caffaro, the Italian Government and the Commission presented oral argument and answered questions from the Court.
Na naroku, ki je bil opravljen 13. marca 2008, so Caffaro, italijanska vlada in Komisija podali ustne navedbe in odgovorili na vpra�anja Sodi�ča.
The Italian Government points out that Directive 2000/35 does not lay down the period within which the claim made by the creditor in the enforceable order must be satisfied, so that a reading of the directive to include the execution stage is contrary to both the literal tenor of the directive and to its objective.
Italijanska vlada poudarja, da Direktiva 2000/35 ne določa roka, v katerem je treba dolg, naveden v izvr�ilnem naslovu, izterjati, zato uporaba te direktive za samo izvr�bo nasprotuje tako njenemu besedilu kot tudi njenemu namenu.
It is clear from Article 5 of and recital 23 in the preamble to Direct- ive 2000/35 that it relates only to the proced- ure for creating the enforceable title, and not to the subsequent execution stage.
Iz člena 5 in triindvajsete uvodne izjave Direktive 2000/35 izhaja, da se ta direktiva nana�a samo na postopek pridobitve izvr�ilnega naslova, ne pa na kasnej�o fazo izvr�be.
Nor can it be deduced from the definition of enforceable title in Article 2 of the directive that the creditor must be able to obtain immediate satisfaction of his claim.
Tudi iz opredelitve izvr�ilnega naslova iz člena 2 te direktive ni mogoče sklepati, da mora imeti upnik možnost, da svoj dolg izterja takoj po pridobitvi izvr�ilnega naslova.
According to the Italian Government, the prohibition on proceeding to execution against a public authority before 120 days have elapsed since service of the enforceable title can be interpreted as the suspension of forced execution within the meaning of recital 15 in the preamble to the directive in question.
Po mnenju italijanske vlade prepoved izvr�be proti javni upravi pred potekom 120 dni od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova lahko predstavlja zadržanje prisilne izvr�be v smislu petnajste uvodne izjave te direktive.
The Italian Government also observes that if Directive 2000/35 is applied in concreto it does not conflict with the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
Italijanska vlada navaja tudi, da če se Direktiva 2000/35 uporablja v konkretnem primeru, ta direktiva ne nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari.
According to the Italian Government, that legislation is admissible on grounds of overriding public interest considerations, given that the purpose of deferring execution against public authorities is to give them the necessary time to ensure that funds are available to pay the debt in order to prevent forced execution proceedings from impeding the activities of the public authorities.
Ta zakonodaja je po mnenju italijanske vlade dopustna zaradi nujnih razlogov javnega interesa, saj je namen odloga izvr�be proti javni upravi le-tej omogočiti dovolj časa za zagotovitev finančnih sredstev, potrebnih za plačilo dolgov, da se s postopki prisilne izvr�be ne bi oviralo delovanja javne uprave.
Caffaro maintains that the disputed national legislation, under which the forced execution of unchallenged claims can be initiated against public authorities only after 120 days have elapsed since the date of service of the enforceable title on the public authority, is contrary to Directive 2000/35.
Caffaro meni, da je sporna nacionalna zakonodaja, v skladu s katero se lahko izvr�ba proti javni upravi začne �ele po poteku 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova javni upravi, v nasprotju z Direktivo 2000/35.
In its opinion, the period of 90 days for obtaining the enforceable title provided for in Article 5 of Directive 2000/35 thus becomes meaningless.
Caffaro navaja, da 90-dnevni rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova, določen v členu 5 Direktive 2000/35, s tem izgubi svoj pomen.