natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Kingdom of Spain found itself, as it claims, in a different situation from the other Member States at the time that Regulation No 1954/2003 was adopted, marked, in particular, by no increase, in the period from 1998 to 2002, in the fishing opportunities as limited by the Act of Accession and by the number of Spanish vessels which could be in the Irish Box at the same time being limited to 40.
Kraljevina Španija se je, kot zatrjuje, ob sprejetju Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 zato zna�la v drugačnem položaju kot druge države članice, za katerega je bilo značilno zlasti preprečevanje povečanja možnosti ribolova v obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002, kot so bile omejene z Aktom o pristopu, in omejitev �tevila �panskih ribi�kih plovil, ki so bila lahko istočasno prisotna na območju „Irish Box“, na 40.
However, making the Kingdom of Spain subject to the same arrangements for management of the fishing effort as the other Member States, laid down in Regulation No 1954/2003, appears to be objectively justified.
Vendar je objektivno utemeljeno, da za Kraljevino Španijo velja isti režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, kot je režim, ki velja za druge države članice.
On the one hand, those arrangements lay down a method for assessing fishing effort which is based on an objective criterion, namely the fishing effort actually exerted by each Member State in the areas and fisheries concerned during a recent period of five years.
Ta režim po eni strani določa metodo ocenjevanja ribolovnega napora, ki temelji na objektivnih podatkih, in sicer na ribolovnemu naporu, ki ga dejansko opravi vsaka država članica v zadevnih območjih in za zadevne vrste ribi�tva v obdobju zadnjih petih let.
On the other hand, the purpose of the arrangements is to conserve fisheries resources in order to ensure, according to the fourth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1954/2003, that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort.
Po drugi stran je namen tega režima prispevati k ohranjanju ribolovnih virov, tako da v skladu s četrto uvodno izjavo navedene uredbe ne pride do povečanja v skupnem obsegu obstoječega ribolovnega napora.
It should be noted that the objective of conserving fisheries resources and the principle of relative stability of fishing are paramount in all Community rules in this field, including, from the Act of Accession to the adoption of Regulation No 1954/2003, those intended to integrate the Kingdom of Spain into the general arrangements under the common fisheries policy.
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da sta cilj ohranjanja ribolovnih virov in načelo relativne stabilnosti ribolovnih dejavnosti nad vsemi predpisi Skupnosti na tem področju, od Akta o pristopu do sprejetja Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, vključno s predpisi, katerih namen je vključitev Kraljevine Španije v splo�ni sistem skupne ribi�ke politike.
Regulation No 1275/94 also states, in the fourth and fifth recitals in the preamble, that ‘free access to waters must be accompanied by supervision of the fishing capacity deployed, in order to ensure that the means in question are appropriate to the resources available’ and that ‘these adjustments must not entail an increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort per ICES and CECAF division nor adversely affect resources subject to quantitative catch restrictions’.
Uredba �t. 1275/94 v četrti in peti uvodni izjavi poleg tega določa, da „mora prost dostop do voda spremljati nadzorovanje uporabljene ribolovne zmogljivosti, da bi zagotovili, da zadevna sredstva ustrezajo razpoložljivim virom“ in da „te prilagoditve ne smejo povzročiti povečanja skupnih obsegov obstoječega ribolovnega napora po razdelkih ICES in CECAF ali �kodljivo vplivati na vire, za katere veljajo količinske omejitve ulova“.
Similarly, the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 685/95 state that ‘it is necessary to safeguard existing balances and the acquis communautaire, particularly the principle of relative stability’ and that ‘it is necessary to ensure that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort within the areas and stocks covered by the Act of Accession’.
V tretji in četrti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 685/95 je prav tako določeno, da „je treba varovati obstoječe ravnotežje in pravni red Skupnosti, �e zlasti načelo relativne stabilnosti“ in „zagotoviti, da na splo�no ni povečanja obstoječega ribolovnega napora v okviru območij in staležev, ki jih zajema Akt o pristopu“.
In addition, with regard to the biologically sensitive area subject to specific fishing effort management rules under Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, it is clear from the file, first of all, that the overlap between that area and the Irish Box is limited, since less than half the box is covered.
Poleg tega, glede biolo�ko občutljivega območja, ki je predmet posebnega režima upravljanja ribolovnega napora, ki je opredeljen v členu 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, iz spisa najprej izhaja, da je prekrivanje tega območja z območjem „Irish Box“ omejeno, ker občutljivo biolo�ko območje pokriva manj kot polovico območja „Irish Box“.
It cannot therefore be claimed that the establishment of the biologically sensitive area and the procedure for the calculation of the maximum annual fishing effort in the area show an intention to continue to apply measures similar to those applied in the Irish Box.
Tako ni mogoče trditi, da določitev tega biolo�ko občutljivega območja in postopek izračuna največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za to območje izražata namen nadaljnje uporabe analognih ukrepov, kot so ukrepi, ki so veljali za območje „Irish Box“.
Also, it follows from the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1954/2003, and Article 6 thereof, that the specific restriction of the fishing effort provided for in that article is also intended to conserve fisheries resources in an area in which there is a high concentration of juvenile hake and that the method used to assess the level of the fishing effort is based on an objective criterion, namely, the fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or more than 10 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002, for demersal fisheries.
Iz sedme uvodne izjave in iz člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 nadalje izhaja, da posebna omejitev ribolovnega napora, določena v tem členu, prav tako zasleduje cilj ohranjanja ribolovnih virov na območju, kjer je visoka koncentracija nedoraslih osličev, in da sprejeta metoda ocenjevanja količine ribolovnega napora tudi temelji na objektivnem merilu, in sicer na ribolovnem naporu ribi�kih plovil celotne dolžine 10 metrov ali več v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 v zvezi z ribolovom pridnenih vrst.
It follows that, notwithstanding the fact that the Kingdom of Spain found itself in a different situation from the other Member States at the time that Regulation No 1954/2003 was adopted, Articles 3, 4 and 6 of that regulation cannot be regarded as constituting a breach of the principle of nondiscrimination in regard to the Kingdom of Spain.
Iz tega sledi, da čeprav se je Kraljevina Španija ob sprejetju Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 nahajala v drugačnem položaju kot druge države članice, členov 3, 4 in 6 te uredbe ni mogoče �teti, kot da pomenijo kr�itev načela prepovedi diskriminacije v zvezi z njo.
In those circumstances, the present submission must be rejected as unfounded.
Zato je ta tožbeni razlog treba zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
Alleged misuse of powers
Tožbeni razlog zlorabe pooblastil
The Kingdom of Spain claims that the real purpose of the establishment of the biologically sensitive area under Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 was not to protect juvenile hake but to maintain the discrimination against the Spanish fleet in that area.
Kraljevina Španija trdi, da resnični razlog za določitev biolo�ko občutljivega območja, določenega v členu 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, ni ohranjanje nedoraslih osličev, temveč diskriminacija �panske flote na tem območju.
On the basis of a study submitted by the Spanish delegation in May 2003, it claims that there were other areas with similar biological characteristics and that the adoption of measures of this kind for the protection of juvenile hake is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1).
Kraljevina Španija, s tem da se opira na �tudijo, ki jo je maja 2003 predstavila �panska delegacija, zatrjuje, da so obstajala druga območja s podobnimi biolo�kimi značilnostmi in da je sprejetje tovrstnih ukrepov, katerih namen je ohranjanje nedoraslih osličev, urejeno z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 850/98 z dne 30. marca 1998 za ohranjanje ribolovnih virov s tehničnimi ukrepi za varovanje nedoraslih morskih organizmov (UL L 125, str. 1).
By adopting Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, the Council thus misused its powers.
Svet naj bi s sprejetjem člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 torej zlorabil pooblastila.
The Commission points out that the fact that there might be other biologically sensitive areas or that other measures could be envisaged does not establish the existence of a misuse of powers.
Komisija navaja, da dejstvo, da lahko obstajajo druga biolo�ko občutljiva območja, ali okoli�čina, da je mogoče določiti druge ukrepe, ne dokazujeta zlorabe pooblastil.
However, in the present case, the Kingdom of Spain has not shown that the specific fishing effort management arrangements laid down in Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 for the biologically sensitive area at issue were adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than the protection of juvenile hake.
V obravnavanem primeru pa Kraljevina Španija ni dokazala, da je bil posebni režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, ki ga za biolo�ko občutljivo območje določa člen 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, sprejet z izključnim ali odločilnim namenom doseči drugačne cilje, kot je ohranjanje nedoraslih osličev.
Moreover, as the Commission contends and as the Advocate General points out in paragraph 102 of his Opinion, neither the fact that technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms may also fall within another regulation nor the fact that there may be other biologically sensitive areas shows that there has been a misuse of powers on the part of the Council in the adoption of Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003.
Kot zatrjuje Komisija in kot poudarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 102 sklepnih predlogov, okoli�čina, da tehnični ukrepi za za�čito nedoraslih morskih organizmov lahko prav tako izhajajo iz druge uredbe, in dejstvo, da lahko obstajajo druga biolo�ko občutljiva območja, ne dokazujeta, da je Svet s sprejetjem člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 zlorabil pooblastila.
This submission must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
Zato je treba ta razlog prav tako zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
Since the Council has applied for costs and the Kingdom of Spain has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Ker je Svet predlagal, naj se Kraljevini Španiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, ta pa s svojimi predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of those Rules, the Commission must bear its own costs.
V skladu z odstav - kom 4, prvi pododstavek, istega člena Komisija nosi svoje stro�ke.
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
Kraljevini Španiji se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti nosi svoje stroške.
Joined Cases C-147/06 and C-148/06
Združeni zadevi C-147/06 in C-148/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato)
(Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Consiglio di Stato)
(Public works contracts — Award of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Exclusion rules — Works contracts not reaching the thresholds laid down in Directives 93/37/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Obligations upon the contracting authorities deriving from the fundamental principles of Community law)
„Javna naročila gradenj – Oddaja naročil – Neobičajno nizke ponudbe – Načini izključitve – Naročila za gradnje, ki ne dosegajo praga, ki ga določata Direktivi 93/37/EGS in 2004/18/ES – Obveznosti naročnika, ki izhajajo iz temeljnih načel prava Skupnosti“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 15 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja, predstavljeni 27. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community law — Principles — Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of nationality(Arts 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC)
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Enako obravnavanje – Diskriminacija zaradi nacionalne pripadnosti
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-147/06 AND C-148/06 of those elements. That would not be the case if national or local legislation or even the contracting authorities concerned were to set a reasonable threshold above which abnormally low tenders were automatically excluded on account of there being an unduly large number of tenders, which might oblige the contracting authorities to examine on an inter partes basis such a high number of bids that it would exceed their administrative capacity or might, due to the delay which such an examination would entail, jeopardise the implementation of the project.
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-147/06 IN C-148/06 zadevni naročnik zaradi prevelikega �tevila ponudb, glede na to, da bi se zaradi obveze naročnika, naj kontradiktorno preveri nekatere od teh množičnih ponudb, preseglo upravne zmožnosti omenjenega naročnika ali bi bila lahko zaradi zamude, ki bi jo povzročilo to preverjanje, v nevarnosti uresničitev projekta, določi razumen prag, pod vrednostjo katerega bi se uporabila samodejna izključitev neobičajno nizkih ponudb.
The fundamental rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services and the general principle of nondiscrimination preclude national legislation which, with regard to contracts with a value below the threshold set by Article 6(1) (a) of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive 97/52, which are of certain cross- border interest, imposes an absolute duty on the contracting authorities, where the number of valid tenders is greater than five, automatically to exclude tenders considered to be abnormally low in relation to the goods, works or services according to a mathematical criterion laid down by that legislation without allowing those contracting authorities any possibility of verifying the constituent elements of those tenders by requesting the tenderers concerned to provide details
Temeljna pravila Pogodbe ES o pravici do ustanavljanja in prostega pretoka storitev kot tudi splo�no načelo nediskriminacije nasprotujejo nacionalni ureditvi, ki – kar zadeva razpise, katerih vrednost je manj�a od praga, določenega v členu 6(1)(a) Direktive Sveta 93/37, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52, in ki imajo določen čezmejni interes – obvezuje naročnike, kadar je veljavnih ponudb več kot pet, naj skladno z matematičnim merilom, ki ga predvideva ta ureditev, samodejno izključijo ponudbe, ki se �tejejo za neobičajno nizke glede na gradnje, ne da bi omenjenim naročnikom dajala kakr�no koli možnost preveriti sestavne dele teh ponudb, ob tem ko bi se od ponudnikov zahtevale podrobnosti glede ponudbe. To ne bi veljalo, če nacionalna ali lokalna ureditev ali celo sam
(see para. 35, operative part)
(Glej točko 35 in izrek.)
The object of the present reference is to determine whether that positive right constitutes a general principle of the Community legal system which applies to the award of public contracts regardless of whether those contracts come under the sectoral directives. 4
Namen tega predloga je opredeliti, ali ta določba pozitivnega prava vključuje splo�no načelo Skupnosti, ki se uporablja za javna naročila, ne glede na to, ali so ta vključena v sektorske direktive ali ne. 4
The Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) seeks a ruling from the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article 234 EC, on whether Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts 2 transcends that directive and also governs the award of contracts excluded from its scope.
Consiglio di Stato (državni svet) Italijanske republike na podlagi člena 234 ES Sodi�če spra�uje, ali člen 30(4) Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje 2 presega direktivo, katere del je, in ureja tudi oddajo naročil, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe te direktive.
The Consiglio di Stato has raised that issue in a very specific context, namely that of a national measure which requires the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders in procedures for the award of contracts with a value lower than that stated in the directives. In addition to that measure is a practice whereby, in the case of such contracts, certain tenderers may influence the outcome
Italijansko visoko sodi�če to vpra�anje postavlja v čisto posebnem okviru, to je v okviru notranje zakonodaje, ki določa, da je treba tako vrsto ponudb v postopkih oddaje naročil, katerih znesek je nižji od zneska, ki je naveden v direktivah, samodejno izključiti, na kar se navezuje praksa, v tej kategoriji ponudb, ko nekateri ponudniki vplivajo
Court interpreted that provi- sion in the judgment in Lombardini and Mantovani, 3stating that it was ‘essential’ that each tenderer suspected of submitting an abnormally low tender should have the opportunity effectively to state his point of view and to supply all relevant explanations (paragraph 53).
V sodbi z dne 27. septembra 2001 v zadevi Lombardini in Mantovani 3je Sodi�če v točki 53, ko je razlagalo to določbo, menilo, da je „bistveno“, da vsak ponudnik, pri katerem obstaja sum, da je predložil neobičajno nizko ponudbo, ustrezno predstavi svoje stali�če in predloži upo�tevna pojasnila.
4 — In addition to Directive 93/37 on the award of public works contracts, Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 (OJ 1977 L 13, p.
4 – Poleg Direktive 93/37, ki zadeva javna naročila za gradnje, to področje urejajo �e Direktiva Sveta 77/62/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1976 (UL 1977, L 13, str.
1), as subsequently amended by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
1), kot je bila pozneje spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 (UL L 199, str.
1), governed the award of public supply contracts.
1), za javna naročila blaga.
The coordination of the procedures for the award of public service contracts was provided for in Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
Naročila storitev in usklajevanje postopkov za njihovo oddajo so bili določeni z Direktivo Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 (UL L 209, str. 1).
Those measures (amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 328, p.
Ta pravila (spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52/ES (UL L 328, str.
1)) were consolidated and merged in a single provision: 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).
1)) so bila uzakonjena in združena v eno besedilo – Direktivo 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).
54.3 — Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99 [2001] ECR I-9233.
54.3 – Združeni zadevi C-285/99 in C-286/99, Recueil, str. I-9233.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-147/06 AND C-148/06 of the tendering procedure by the ruse 5of colluding to submit similar bids with the aim of creating a particular anomalous threshold and excluding other tenderers.
Temeljni namen Direktive Sveta 71/305/EGS z dne 26. julija 1971 6, na rezultat razpisa z zvijačo, 5 s tem da dosežejo dogovor glede predstavitve podobnih ponudb, da bi določili določen prag nenavadnosti in izločili druge kandidate.
in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively. Council Directive 71/305/EEC of 26 July 1971, 6which set in motion the coordination of the laws of the Member States on public procurement, had as its main purpose the simultaneous attainment of those two freedoms, as stated in the first recital.
s katero so bile usklajene zakonodaje držav članic na področju oddaje javnih naročil, je bil, kot je navedeno v njeni prvi uvodni izjavi, hkratno doseganje teh dveh svobo�čin.
That directive, which applied only to contracts with a value of 1 000 000 units of account or above (eighth recital), provided that the criteria for the award of contracts should be the lowest price or the most economically advantageous tender (Article 29(1)) and, envisaging that there might be abnormally low tenders, provided for the exclusion of such tenders after hearing explanations from the tenderers concerned (Article 29(5)).
Ta direktiva, ki je urejala samo naročila v vrednosti milijon ali več obračunskih enot (osma uvodna izjava), je določala merila za oddajo naročil, ki so temeljila bodisi na najnižji ceni bodisi na ekonomsko najugodnej�i možnosti (člen 29(1)), in ob neobičajno nizkih ponudbah omogočala njihovo zavrnitev, potem ko je preveč drzni ponudnik dobil možnost izraziti svoje mnenje (člen 29(5)).
The present reference for a preliminary ruling is, therefore, highly significant since it concerns general principles of Community law while also recognising that the solution may be founded only on Community legal provisions.
Ta predhodna odločba je torej zelo pomembna, saj se nana�a na splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, pri čemer ne smemo pozabiti, da lahko re�itev temelji le na pravnem sistemu Evropske unije.
The Court must have regard to both spheres in order to provide the Italian court with an effective response to enable it to resolve the dispute.
Da bo lahko Sodi�če italijanskemu sodnemu organu dalo učinkovit odgovor za razre�itev spora, mora upo�tevati obe smeri.
II — The legal framework
II – Pravni okvir
The freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services are enshrined
Kar zadeva razlago tega pravila, je Sodi�če razsodilo, da je mogoče odločitev o zavrnitvi sprejeti �ele po tem, ko je bilo podjetniku omogočeno, da pojasni svojo ponudbo, to je po uporabi kontradiktornega postopka preverjanja, kar pomeni, da so samodejne izključitve izključene. 7
6 — Directive concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1971 (II), p. 682).
6 – Direktiva o uskladitvi postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 185, str. 5).
7 — That was the finding of the Court in the judgment in Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839, paragraphs 16, 18 and 19, which prohibited the automatic exclusion of tenders determined in accordance with mathematical criteria (point 1 of the operative part).
7 – V skladu s sodbo z dne 22. junija 1989 v zadevi Fratelli Costanzo (103/88, Recueil, str.
That caselaw was reiterated in the judgment in Case C-295/89 Donà Alfonso [1991] ECR I-2967.
1839, točke 16, 18 in 19), s katero je bilo prepovedano izključevanje po uradni dolžnosti, ki bi bilo opredeljeno na podlagi samodejnih meril (točka 1 besedila); ta sodna praksa je bila potrjena v sodbi z dne 18. junija 1991 v zadevi Donà Alfonso (C-295/89, Recueil, str. I-2967).
Prior to this was the judgment in Case 76/81 Transporoute [1982] ECR 417, paragraph 18.
Že prej je bila v tem smislu izrečena sodba v zadevi Transporoute z dne 10. februarja 1982 (76/81, Recueil, str. 417, točka 18).
Directive 71/305 was amended substantially on a number of occasions; 8it was
Direktiva 71/305 je bila večkrat zapored spremenjena, 8zato jo je bilo treba kodifici-
If the documents relating to the contract provide for its award at the lowest price tendered, the contracting authority must communicate to the Commission the rejection of tenders which it considers to be too low.
Če je v dokumentih v zvezi z naročilom predvidena oddaja po najnižji ponujeni ceni, mora naročnik obvestiti Komisijo o zavrnitvi ponudb, za katere meni, da so prenizke.