natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is clear from the foregoing considerations that urban development works which are subject to Directive 93/37 must also comply with the rules laid down in that direct- ive governing the calculation of the value of contracts.
Zgornji premisleki dokazujejo, da morajo tudi urbanistične dejavnosti, ki jih pokriva Direktiva 93/37, spo�tovati tudi pravila, ki jih ta direktiva določa za izračun vrednosti naročil, in da je treba zavrniti določbe, ki kot določbe člena 2(5) zakona �t.
Provisions such as Article 2(5) of Law No 109/94, which alter those rules by stipulating a single general criterion which has the detrimental effect of circumventing the Community provisions and precluding, on objective grounds relating to the value of the works, the undertakings of other Member States from submitting tenders in public
109/94 �kodijo tem pravilom, ker določajo enotno splo�no merilo, katerega �kodljiva posledica je izogibanje predpisom Skupnosti in preprečevanje iz objektivnih razlogov, povezanih z vrednostjo storitev, da bi podjetja iz drugih
58 — In the Opinion in Ordine degli Architetti and Others, Advocate General Léger correctly states that an essential element of the contractual relationship is missing where ‘a party called on to carry out development works is simply identified by law’ (point 68).
58 – Generalni pravobranilec Léger je v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Ordine degli Architetti in drugi upravičeno navedel, da bistveni element pogodbenega razmerja manjka, kadar je „izvajalec, ki mora izvesti urbanistična dela, enostavno določen z zakonom“ (točka 68).
Although in that case the Court analysed Directive 93/38, the findings concerning analogous provisions may be applied to Directive 93/37.
Čeprav je Sodi�če v tej sodbi preučilo Direktivo 93/38, lahko ugotovitve o podobnih določbah raz�irimo na Direktivo 93/37.
COMMISSION v ITALY procurement procedures in which they wish to participate, cannot therefore be upheld. 62
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI držav članic predložila ponudbe v postopkih oddaje naročil, ki jih zanimajo. 62
The Commission claims that the principles of nondiscrimination, equal treatment, proportionality and transparency must also be applied to contracts which do not fall within the scope of the Directives and that those principles are infringed where the procurement procedure is not advertised at all, an infringement which is not remedied by the requirement to confirm the experience and professional capacity of the person selected and to state reasons for the selection.
Komisija trdi, da je treba tudi zunaj področja uporabe evropskih pravil preveriti spo�tovanje načel prepovedi diskriminacije, enakega obravnavanja, sorazmernosti in preglednosti, katerih kr�itev je ugotovljena, kadar se naročilo odda brez kakr�ne koli objave razpisa, kr�itev pa ne more odpraviti dejstvo, da je naročnik preveril izku�nje in poklicno usposobljenost izbrane osebe in utemeljil izbiro.
Article 2(5) of Italian Law No 109/94 accordingly infringes Directive 93/37.
Zgoraj navedena določba italijanskega zakona je torej v nasprotju z Direktivo 93/37.
D — The award of contracts for the design, supervision and inspection of works the value of which is below the Community thresholds
D – Dodelitev nalog projektiranja, vodenja in nadziranja gradnje pri naročilih, katerih vrednost je nižja od pragov Skupnosti
The defendant cites the amendment of Law No 109/94, which inserts a specific reference to the Community principles, and repeats its previous assertion that the references to the Treaty and the caselaw of the Court required by the plaintiff are unreasonable.
Tožena vlada navaja reformo zakona �t. 109/94, ki dodaja sklicevanje na navedena načela, in povzema zgoraj predstavljeno trditev o neobstoju racionalnosti navedb, ki jih zahteva tožeča stranka.
62 — See the judgment in Commission v France, cited in footnote 61, in particular points 38 to 47.
62 – V opombi 61 navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji, glej predvsem točke od 38 do 47.
In the Opinion in that case, Advocate General Jacobs put forward the view that a series of operations to be carried out within a specified period on a group of networks having a shared economic and technical function must itself be regarded as intended to fulfil a shared economic and technical function (point 72).
Generalni pravobranilec Jacobs je v sklepnih predlogih, ki jih je predstavil pri tej zadevi, trdil, da je treba �tevilne operacije, ki jih je treba izvesti v določenem obdobju na vseh omrežjih z isto gospodarsko in tehnično funkcijo, obravnavati, kot da so namenjene izpolnitvi iste gospodarske in tehnične funkcije (točka 72); to trditev lahko raz�irimo na urbanistične dejavnosti, prav tako tudi ugotovitev iz sodbe z dne 14. septembra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-385/02, ZOdl., str. I-8121), da „gola trditev, da je celota del zahtevna in težavna, ne zado�ča za dokaz za to, da jo je treba zaupati le enemu podjetju“ (točka 21).
Since the arguments raised in connection with this complaint are similar to the ones put forward concerning Article 2(5) of Law No 109/94, it is advisable to settle the matter in the same way, that is, by holding that Community law does not currently require that the obligation to observe the Community principles in the case of excluded contracts must be explicitly enshrined in legislation governing the award of those contracts, subject always to the right to scrutinise each procedure and to bring an action for infringement of the principles before national courts or the Court of Justice.
Ker razprava temelji na podobnih trditvah kot razprava o členu 2(5) zakona �t. 109/94, jo je treba na podlagi izku�enj re�iti enako, torej s sklepanjem, da sedaj pravni red Skupnosti ne zahteva, da je obveznost, da za izključena naročila veljajo zgoraj navedena načela, predmet posebne pisne omembe, kar zadeva dodelitev zadevnih nalog, ne da bi to vplivalo na možnost preučitve vsakega postopka in izpodbijanja njegove skladnosti s temi načeli pred nacionalnimi sodi�či ali sodi�čem Skupnosti.
E — The award of contracts for the supervision of works
E – Dodelitev naloge vodenja gradnje
Identical considerations to the ones already set out with regard to the previous complaints are relevant to the application of the principles of transparency and equal treatment to contracts for the supervision of works whose value does not exceed the Community thresholds, because the same factors are involved. In that connection, the infringement complained of by the Commission cannot be upheld.
Vodenje gradnje je naloga naročnika, vendar se lahko, kadar je niti naročnik niti druge javne upravne ne morejo opravlja ti, dodeli projektantu (člen 27(2) zakona �t. 109/94).
The contracting authority is responsible for the supervision of works but where neither that authority nor other public authorities are able to carry out that task, it is awarded to the project designer (Article 27(2) of Law No 109/94).
Za učinek načel preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja na naročila, katerih vrednost je nižja od pragov, ki se uporabljajo, veljajo enaki premisleki, kot sem jih že predstavil, saj izhaja iz istih elementov. V zvezi s tem neizpolnitev obveznosti, ki jo navaja Komisija, ni dokazana.
The Commission complains that the general nature of that provision infringes Directives 92/50 and 93/38, the aim of which is to ensure publicity and competition in procurement procedures for supervision services both where the Community thresholds are exceeded, because the Directives so provide, and where those thresholds are not reached, in accordance with the principles of the Treaty.
Komisija graja splo�ni značaj pravila in trdi, da kr�i direktivi 92/50 in 93/38, po katerih je treba naloge vodenja dodeliti ob spo�tovanju načel ogla�evanja in konkurence, če so pragovi Skupnosti preseženi, ker tako določajo predpisi, in tudi če ti pragovi niso doseženi, zaradi vpliva načel Pogodbe.
A different solution must apply to contracts which, by reason of their value, are subject to procurement procedures because the Community provisions are precise in that regard.
Italijanska vlada poudarja težave, ki se jim njen sistem posku�a izogniti, vendar dodaja, da je v odgovor na ugovore spreme -
The Italian Government draws attention to the difficulties which its system avoids but adds that, with a view to addressing the complaints put forward, it has amended Law No 109/94 by introducing a number of safeguards which provide that the contracting authority may only award the contract to the project designer if it indicates as much in
Javna naročila, ki so zaradi svoje vrednosti podvržena postopkom javnega razpisa, zahtevajo drugačno re�itev ob upo�tevanju jasnosti pravil Skupnosti. V takih primerih je treba strogo upo�tevati vse določbe, čeprav je morda pripravno opustiti postopke, saj člen 11(1) Direktive 92/50 in člen 4(1) Direktive 93/38 nista dvoumna, ker za oddajo naročil določata postopke – odprte, omejene in s pogajanji –, ki jih
COMMISSION v ITALY that, as the caselaw has made clear, only the exceptions provided for are permitted. 64
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI opredeljujeta 63, tako da so na podlagi sodne prakse dopustne samo predvidene izjeme 64.
The complaint put forward by the Commission in that connection repeats the claim, set out in section VII E of this Opinion, that the procedures laid down in Direct ives 92/50 and 93/38 must be applied where the value of the contract exceeds the relevant thresholds and that the principles laid down in the Treaty must be respected in all other cases.
Komisija, ki vztraja pri trditvi, predstavljeni v delu VII E teh sklepnih predlogov, trdi, da je treba uporabiti postopke, določene z direktivama 92/50 in 93/38, če ocenjena vrednost naročila presega upo�tevne pragove, in da se nad temi omejitvami uporabljajo načela Pogodbe.
Contracts for the supervision of works are included in category 12 of Annex I A to Directive 92/50 and of Annex XVI A to Directive 93/38, from which it follows that those contracts must be awarded in accordance with the procedures laid down in those Directives.
Dejavnosti vodenja gradnje spadajo v kategorijo 12 v Prilogi I A k Direktivi 92/50 in Prilogi XVI A k Direktivi 93/38; iz tega izhaja, da morajo biti dodeljene v skladu s pravili, določenimi v teh direktivah.
The Italian Government cites the future repeal of the regulatory provisions (specifically, of Article 188(8) to (11) of Presidential Decree No 554/99). 65
Italijanska vlada navaja, da bo razveljavila uredbene določbe (v tem primeru odstavke od 8 do 11 člena 188 uredbe predsednika Republike �t. 554/99) 65.
For all the reasons stated, it is clear that Article 27(2) of Law No 109/94 infringes Directives 92/50 and 93/38.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve ni nobenega dvoma, da člen 27(2) zakona �t. 109/94 kr�i direktivi 92/50 in 93/38.
F — The award of contracts for inspection services
F – Dodelitev nalog nadzora
That expression by the Italian Government of its good intentions in the fullness of time notwithstanding, this complaint must be resolved in the same way as the preceding one.
Če ne upo�tevamo te izjave o dobrih namenih v prihodnosti, je treba ta očitek re�iti enako kot prej�njega, saj ga ni mogoče grajati z vidika členov 43 ES in 49 ES; �e več, naloge nadzora, ki spadajo v kategorijo 12 v Prilogi I A k Direktivi 92/50 in Prilogi XVI A k Direktivi 93/38, je treba dodeliti v skladu z direktivama.
For all the reasons stated, Article 28(4) of Law No 109/94, in conjunction with
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba sklepati, da člen 28(4) zakona �t.
65 — In the rejoinder the defendant contends that, in judgment No 302/03 (paragraph 5.1), the Corte Constituzionale (Constitutional Court) held that Article 188(8) to (10) of the Decree is unconstitutional.
64 – Glej sodbo z dne 17. novembra 1993 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-71/92, Recueil, str. I-5923, točka 10) in zgoraj navedeni sodbi Teckal, točka 43, ter Carbotermo in Consorzio Alisei, točka 45.
G — Privately financed works other competitors, even where his original proposal is not as suitable, because he participates automatically in the procedure and has priority in the selection process.
obravnavanja, saj podeljuje promotorju dve ugodnosti v primerjavi z drugimi konkurenti, čeprav bi bila njegova začetna ponudba manj ustrezna, ker je samodejno vključen v postopek in ima prednost pri izbiri.
It would be possible to excuse the infringement if all the participants were aware of those advantages and of the selection criteria, but it is not obligatory to state those matters in the initial notice.
Kr�itev ne bi bila ugotovljena, če bi vsi udeleženci poznali te ugodnosti in merila ocenjevanja, vendar te točke ne smejo biti navedene v prvotnem obvestilu; na drugi strani, ker je obvestilo o razpisu obvezno �ele od 18. avgusta 2002, ko je začel veljati zakon �t.
Second, the Commission complains that, since the notice has only been compulsory with effect from 18 August 2002, the date on which Law No 166/2002 entered into force, procedures which have already been held lead to outcomes which are incompatible with the general Community provisions.
166/2002, so postopki, ki so privedli do odločitev, v nasprotju s splo�nimi načeli prava Skupnosti.
The defendant contends that both complaints have been addressed in the amendment of Law No 109/94, which provides that the notice must state the advantages of the promoter, and refers to a regulatory provision governing procedures which were already underway on 31 January 2004 and in which the notices did not contain that statement.
Po mnenju tožene vlade sta bila ta očitka odpravljena z reformo zakona �t. 109/94, ki v obvestilo o razpisu uvaja omembo ugodnosti promotorja in napotuje na uredbeno določbo, ki ureja postopke, ki so potekali 31. januarja 2004 in niso vsebovali te omembe.
Contracting authorities allow third parties to execute public works which may be exploited commercially.
Uprave dovoljujejo, da lahko tretje osebe izvajajo javne gradnje, ki se lahko gospodarsko izkori�čajo.
In the first stage of the procedure, the authorities publish a notice inviting private persons, who then acquire the status of promoters, to submit proposals for the award of concessions under which those persons assume all or part of the costs and, by way of consideration, undertake to operate the concession.
V prvi fazi z obvestilom pozovejo posameznike, naj kot promotorji predložijo predloge za dodelitev koncesij, v okviru katerih stro�ke v celoti ali deloma plačajo promotorji, ki se v zameno zavežejo, da bodo zagotavljali upravljanje.
Once the proposals submitted have been evaluated, those which are in the public interest are chosen in the second stage when, in the case of each proposal chosen, a restricted procedure is commenced with a view to selecting two further offers.
Po ocenitvi predloženih predlogov se predlogi, za katere se �teje, da so v javnem interesu, izberejo v drugi fazi, v kateri se za vsak izbran predlog začne omejeni postopek, da bi dobili �e dve ponudbi.
Those offers are used as points of reference in the negotiated procedure which leads to the award of the concession and favours the promoter who is able to adapt his proposal to the specifications of the contracting authority (Articles 37a, 37b and 37c of Law No 109/94).
Ti se uporabita kot referenci za pogajanja, ki se morajo končati z izbiro promotorja, ki lahko svojo ponudbo prilagodi zahtevam naročnika (členi 37a, 37b in 37c zakona �t. 109/94).
Although the Italian Government does not dispute the claims advanced in the application, the burden of proving the alleged infringement falls on the Commission and it must do so without relying on any presumption, 66 although, once sufficient
Čeprav s trditvami italijanske vlade ni mogoče zavrniti trditev, navedenih v tožbi, mora Komisija dokazati obstoj zatrjevane neizpolnitve obveznosti, ne da bi se smela opreti na kakr�no koli domnevo 66, čeprav mora država članica, kadar so predstavljeni
COMMISSION v ITALY evidence has been adduced, the Member State concerned must challenge that evidence in substance and in detail. 67
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI zadostni elementi, te vsebinsko in podrobno izpodbijati 67.
Further to the considerations set out in the foregoing points, it is appropriate to uphold the claim that Articles 37b and 37c(1) of Law No 109/94 infringe the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Ob upo�tevanju ugotovitev, predstavljenih v prej�njih točkah, je treba sklepati, da člena 37b in 37c(1) zakona �t. 109/94 kr�ita načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki izhaja iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
It may be concluded from the foregoing that:
Iz zgornjih ugotovitev izhaja, da:
The two claims appear to be wellfounded in principle.
Zdi se, da sta oba očitka načeloma utemeljena.
In the case of the first claim, because, as the Commission states, the national legislation accords to the promoter of the works certain advantages which the other candidates do not receive and are unable to do anything about. In that connection, the Court held in Commission v Belgium that, when a contracting entity takes into account an amendment to the initial tenders of only one tenderer, that tenderer enjoys an advantage over his competitors, which breaches the principle of the equal treatment of tenderers and impairs the transparency of the procedure (paragraph 56).
Prvi zato, ker glede na pojasnila Komisije nacionalna zakonodaja pobudniku gradnje podeljuje ugodnosti, ki jih druge zainteresirane stranke ne poznajo in jim ne morejo nasprotovati; Sodi�če je imelo priložnost v zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 25. aprila 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji odločiti, da kadar naročnik upo�teva spremembo prvotnih ponudb samo enega ponudnika, ima ta prednost pred drugimi konkurenti, kar kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja in �kodi preglednosti postopka (točka 56).
Furthermore, the Commission cites a number of specific cases where the notice failed to state the advantages or stipulate the objective selection criteria. 68
Komisija poleg tega navaja primer nekaterih obvestil, ki ne omenjajo zadevnih ugodnosti niti objektivnih meril izbire.
— Article 2(1) of Law No 109/94 is incompatible with Directives 92/50, 93/36, 93/37 and 93/38;
109/94 v nasprotju z direktivami 92/50, 93/36, 93/37 in 93/38;
The second claim appears to be founded on the grounds that the subsequent correction of defects in the situation giving rise to the infringement is insufficient from a temporal point of view.
Drugi očitek je utemeljen, ker so bile pomanjkljivosti kritiziranega položaja odpravljene a posteriori in prepozno.
— Article 27(2) of Law No 109/94 infringes Directives 92/50 and 93/38;
člen 27(2) zakona �t. 109/94 ni v skladu z direktivama 92/50 in 93/38;
— Article 28(4) of Law No 109/94, in conjunction with Article 188 of Presidential Decree No 554/99, infringes Directives 92/50 and 93/38; and pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s pleadings.
Sodi�če prve stopnje v skladu s členom 69(3), če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma, odloči, da se stro�ki delijo ali da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke.
— Articles 37b and 37c(1) of Law No 109/94 are incompatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
– člena 37b in 37c(1) zakona �t. 109/94 nista združljiva s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
However, Article 2(5), Article 17(12), Article 27(2), and Article 30(6a) of Law No 109/94 do not infringe Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Nasprotno pa so členi 2(5), 17(12), 27(2) in 30(6a) zakona �t. 109/94 v skladu s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
In view of the fact that the Commission and the Italian Republic have each applied for costs to be awarded against the other, and since I propose that the action be allowed in part, Italy should bear half the costs of the Commission which should, in turn, bear half the costs of that Member State.
Ker sta Komisija in Italijanska republika predlagali, naj se nasprotni stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker predlagam, da se tožbi delno ugodi, ta država članica nosi polovico stro�kov Komisije, ki nosi polovico stro�kov nasprotne stranke.
VIII — Costs
VIII – Stroški
Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that the unsuccessful party must be ordered to
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili prigla�eni. Vendar lahko
Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States which have intervened in these proceedings must bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(4), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika države članice, ki se kot intervenienti udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice:
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
(1) declare that, by adopting Articles 37b and 37c(1) of Law No 109/1994 of 11 February 1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
1. ugotovi, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je sprejela člena 37b in 37c(1) zakona �t. 109 z dne 11. februarja 1994, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES;
COMMISSION v ITALY under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC; that, by adopting Article 2(1) of Law No 109 of 11 February 1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directives 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, and 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993, relating, respectively, to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply contracts, public works contracts, and the procurement procedures in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors; that, by adopting Article 2(5) of Law No 109/94, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37; and that, by adopting Articles 27(2) and 28(4) of Law No 109/94, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50 and 93/38;
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI da ta država članica s tem, da je sprejela člen 2(1) navedenega zakona, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992, 93/36/EGS, 93/37/EGS in 93/38/EGS, vse tri z dne 14. junija 1993, o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, blaga in za gradnje ter o usklajevanju postopkov naročanja naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem, transportnem in telekomunikacijskem sektorju; da Italijanska republika s tem, da je ohranila v veljavi člen 2(5) zakona �t. 109/94, ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti iz Direktive 93/37 in da zadevna država članica s tem, da je sprejela člena 27(2) in 28(4) navedenega zakona, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv 92/50 in 93/38;
(5) order the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.
5. odloči, da Republika Finska in Kraljevina Nizozemska nosita svoje stro�ke.
JUDGMENT OF 21. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 21. 2.
2008 — CASE C-412/04
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat)
ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 24 September 2004,
V zadevi C-412/04, zaradi tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES, vložene 24. septembra 2004,
COMMISSION v ITALY supported by:
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI ob intervenciji
French Republic, represented by G. de Bergues, acting as Agent,
Francoske republike, ki jo zastopa G. de Bergues, zastopnik,
Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, interveners,
Republike Finske, ki jo zastopa A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, zastopnica, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, intervenientke,
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 November 2006,
Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 8. novembra 2006
2008 — CASE C-412/04 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04 izreka naslednjo
By its action, the Commission of the European Communities seeks a declaration from the Court that, by adopting the provisions contained in:
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo predlaga Sodi�ču, naj ugotovi, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je sprejela: