natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 — See, most recently, Case C-195/04 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-3351, paragraph 18 and the caselaw cited therein.
12 – Glej, najbolj pred kratkim, sodbo z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Finski (C-195/04, ZOdl., str.
See also Case C-29/04 Commission v Austria [2005] ECR I-9705, paragraphs 25 to 27 and the caselaw cited therein.
I-3351, točka 18 in v njej navedena sodna praksa). Glej tudi sodbo z dne 10. novembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Avstriji (C-29/04, ZOdl., str.
11 — See, inter alia, Case C-375/95 Commission v Greece [1997] ECR I-5981, paragraph 35 and the caselaw cited therein.
13 – Komisija ima prav, ko v odgovoru poudari, da Italija sama v obrambi navaja, da so Carabinieri, Guardia di Finanza in Guardia Costiera državna telesa, ki imajo voja�ko naravo. Druga telesa so civilne narave.
13 — The Commission is right to point out in its reply that Italy itself states in its defence that the Carabinieri, Guardia di Finanza and Guardia Costiera are State corps of a military character.
11 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 23. oktobra 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-375/95, Recueil, str.
The other corps are, however, civil.
I-5981, točka 35 in navedena sodna praksa).
In those circumstances, Italy’s plea that the complaint raised during the prelitigation procedure does not correspond to the form of order sought in the present action cannot be upheld.
Primerjava med obrazloženim mnenjem in tožbo, katerih besedilo je skoraj enako, pokaže, da temeljita na enakih ugovorih. V takih okoli�činah trditve Italije, da očitek v predhodnem postopku naj ne bi ustrezal tožbenim predlogom v tej sodbi, ne moremo sprejeti.
Indeed that action was held inadmissible on account of the ordinance’s temporary validity.
Tožba je bila zato razgla�ena za nedopustno zaradi začasne veljavnosti odredbe.
A re-examination of the legality of Ordinance No 3231 has not been sought in the present proceedings.
Ponovna presoja zakonitosti odredbe 3231 se ni predlagala.
Rather the subjectmatter of the present case is the alleged practice of directly awarding contracts for the purchase of helicopters to Agusta without any tendering procedure at Community level.
Bolj kot predmet te zadeve je zatrjevana oddaja javnih naročil za nakup brez razpisnega postopka na stopnji Skupnosti.
It follows from the foregoing that the Italian Government’s objection of inadmissibility must be dismissed.
Iz zgoraj povedanega izhaja, da je treba ugovor italijanske vlade glede nedopustnosti zavreči.
Secondly, as regards the Italian Government’s contention that the facts alleged by the Commission were vague and imprecise, in my opinion in the prelitigation procedure in the present case it was set out clearly why the Commission considered that the Italian Republic had failed to comply with the direct- ives on public supplies.
Drugič, glede opozorila italijanske vlade, da so bila dejstva, ki jih je navajala Komisija, ohlapna in niso bila natančna, je bilo po mojem mnenju v predhodnem postopku v tej zadevi jasno izraženo, zakaj je Komisija menila, da se Italijanska republika ni uskladila z direktivami o javnih naročilih.
Indeed, in point 14 of the reasoned opinion and point 25 of the letter of formal notice, the Commission stated in unambiguous terms that it had been unable to obtain any information that would confirm that the Italian Government had followed public procurement procedures at Community level in its purchases of helicopters, in conformity with Directive 93/36 but also, previously, Directives 77/62, 80/767 and 88/295.
Poleg tega je v točki 14 obrazloženega mnenja in točki 25 pisnega opomina Komisija nedvoumno izjavila, da ni mogla dobiti nobene informacije, ki bi potrdila, da je italijanska vlada za nakup helikopterjev upo�tevala postopke za oddajo javnih naročil na stopnji Skupnosti v skladu z Direktivo 93/36, predhodno pa tudi z direktivami 77/62, 80/767 in 88/295.
The allegations were thus sufficiently clear for the Italian Government to defend itself.
Tako so bile trditve dovolj jasne, da je bila za italijansko vlado mogoča obramba.
The in-house relations with Agusta
Odnosi „in house“ z družbo Agusta
Finally, I consider that the principle ne bis in idem has not been breached in the present proceedings.
Končno iz teh postopkov ne izhaja nobena kr�itev načela ne bis in idem.
In my view the subjectmatter of Case C-525/03 concerned a specific national order (namely Ordinance No 3231) which authorised recourse to negotiated procedures by way of derogation from directives on public supply and service contracts.
Po mojem mnenju se je predmet zadeve Komisija proti Italiji nana�al na posebno nacionalno odredbo (in sicer odredbo �t. 3231), ki
In order to establish whether Italy actually breached the directives on public supply contracts, I shall first deal with the Italian Government’s contention that until the end of the 1990s its relations with Agusta qualified as ‘in-house’ relations.
Za ugotovitev, ali je Italija res kr�ila direktive javnih naročil, bom najprej preučil trditev italijanske vlade, da so bili njeni odnosi z družbo Agusta do konca devetdesetih let opredeljeni kot „in house“ odnosi.
COMMISSION v ITALY
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI a) Bistvene trditve strank b) Presoja
As the Commission rightly argues, it is important to recall that, according to the Court’s settled caselaw, a call for tenders, under the directives relating to public procurement, is not compulsory, even if the contracting party is an entity legally distinct from the contracting authority, where two cumulative conditions are met.
Kot pravilno nasprotuje Komisija, je pomembno spomniti, da po ustaljeni sodni praksi Sodi�ča javni razpis v skladu z direktivami o oddaji javnih naročil ni obvezen, čeprav sta sopogodbenik in naročnik pravno različna subjekta, kadar sta izpolnjena dva pogoja.
First, the public authority which is a contracting authority must exercise over the distinct entity in question a control which is similar to that which it exercises over its own departments and, second, that entity must carry out the essential part of its activities with the local authority or authorities which control it. 15
Po eni strani mora javni organ, ki je naročnik, nad drugim zadevnim subjektom izvajati nadzor, ki je podoben tistemu, ki ga izvaja nad svojimi službami, po drugi strani pa mora ta subjekt pretežni del svoje dejavnosti opravljati z enim ali več javnimi organi, ki jim pripada. 15
Italy submits that the relations with Agusta were ‘in-house’ relations and in its defence it traces the development of public participation in Agusta.
Italija trdi, da so bili odnosi z družbo Agusta ,‚in house‘‘ odnosi in v obrambi opozarja na razvoj javnega deleža v Agusti.
Although Italy acknowledges that the direct award of contracts by the State to companies in whose capital it participated at the time was difficult to reconcile with the caselaw on ‘in-house’ transactions, it contends that Agusta’s relations with the Italian State had rather the character of what it refers to as ‘auto-produc-tion of goods and services’ — used by the State and which constituted a fundamental part of the production portfolio of companies with a State participation.
Čeprav Italija priznava, da je to, da je država neposredno oddala javna naročila družbam, v kapitalu katerih je bila udeležena, težko v skladu s sodno prakso glede „in house“ poslov, trdi, da so odnosi družbe Agusta z italijansko vlado rahlo spominjali na „samoproizvodnjo blaga in storitev“, ki jo je uporabljala država in je bila temeljni delež proizvodnega portfolia družb z udeležbo javnega kapitala.
It was Italy’s duty not only to claim the existence of such a relationship between the contracting authorities and Agusta, but also to furnish such evidence as would enable the Court to conclude unequivocally that the above two conditions were met.
Dolžnost Italije ni bilo le zatrjevanje obstoja takega odnosa med naročnikom in družbo Agusta, ampak tudi predložitev dokaza, da bi lahko Sodi�če jasno ugotovilo, da sta bila izpolnjena zgornja pogoja.
However, it is apparent from the file before the Court that Italy’s claims in this respect are rather inconclusive and are not supported by any relevant documents.
Vendar iz spisa na Sodi�ču izhaja, da trditve Italije glede tega niso preveč prepričljive in niso podprte z nobenimi upo�tevnimi dokumenti.
Therefore, in the present case, the Italian Government has failed to demonstrate that the two conditions have been met.
Tako v tej zadevi italijanska vlada ni dokazala, da sta bila izpolnjena zgornja pogoja.
The Commission submits that the Italian authorities did not prove that the criteria established by the Court in Teckal were fulfilled in the present case, 14as Italy confined itself to submitting only vague and imprecise information.
Komisija trdi, da italijanski organi niso dokazali, da so bila merila, ki jih je določilo Sodi�če v sodbi Teckal, v tem primeru izpolnjena, 14saj je Italija priznala, da je predložila le ohlapne in nenatančne informacije.
15 — See Teckal, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 50, and, most recently, Case C-295/05 Asemfo [2007] ECR I-2999, paragraph 55 and the caselaw cited therein.
14 – Glej sodbo z dne 18. novembra 1999 v zadevi Teckal (C-107/98, Recueil, str. I-8121).
14 — See Case C-107/98 [1999] ECR I-8121.
I-2999, točka 55 in v njej navedena sodna praksa).
Moreover, the Court recently clarified that the participation, even as a minority, of a private undertaking in the capital of a company in which the contracting authority in question is also a participant excludes in any event the possibility of that contracting authority exercising over that company a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments. 16
Nadalje je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da udeležba, čeprav le manj�inska, zasebnega podjetja v kapitalu družbe, v kateri je udeležen tudi zadevni naročnik, v vsakem primeru izključuje možnost, da bi ta naročnik lahko nad to družbo izvr�eval podoben nadzor, kot ga izvaja nad svojimi službami.
(a) Main arguments of the parties
16 a) Bistvene trditve strank
Therefore, in view of the fact pointed out by the Commission that between the 1970s and the 1990s Agusta was never wholly owned by the Italian State, that in itself suffices to exclude the existence of an in-house relationship with Agusta.
Tako je glede na dejstvo, ki ga izpostavlja Komisija, da družba Agusta v letih 1970–1990 nikoli ni bila v celoti v državni lasti, kar bi zadostovalo, da se izključi obstoj „in house“ odnosa z družbo Agusta.
17Moreover, as regards the period since 2000, when a joint-venture ‘Agusta Westland’ was created with the British company Westland, the in-house relationship with the Italian State has to be excluded as well.
17Nadalje je treba v obdobju po letu 2000, ko je bilo z britansko družbo Westland ustanovljeno skupno podjetje Agusta Westland, „in house“ odnos z italijansko vlado prav tako izključiti.
In view of the fact that the public supplies at issue fulfil the conditions laid down by Directive 93/36, in that due to helicopters’ high prices the contracts have always largely exceeded the threshold of 130 000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), 18the Commission maintains they should have been subject to an open procedure or to a restricted one, in conformity with Article 6 of the Directive, but not to a negotiated procedure.
Glede dejstva, da sporna javna naročila izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene z Direktivo 93/36, v tem, da so zaradi visokih cen helikopterjev naročila vedno močno prestopila prag 130.000 posebnih pravic črpanja (SDR), 18Komisija trdi, da bi morala biti predmet odprtega ali omejenega postopka v skladu s členom 6 Direktive, ne pa predmet postopka s pogajanji.
Therefore, the Commission submits that the infringement of Community law is demonstrated.
Tako Komisija trdi, da je prikazana kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
Since the Italian authorities have explicitly admitted purchasing Agusta helicopters without any tendering procedure on the Community level before 2000, the Commission submits that the practice of directly awarding contracts to Agusta has been pursued after 2000, which is confirmed by the contracts annexed to its application.
Ker so italijanski organi izrecno priznali, da so kupili helikopterje družbe Agusta brez razpisnega postopka na stopnji Skupnosti pred letom 2000, Komisija trdi, da se je neposredna oddaja javnih naročil družbi Agusta nadaljevala po letu 2000, kar so potrdila naročila, ki so bila priložena tožbi.
Hence, I shall now consider whether the directives on public supply contracts were indeed breached.
Zato bom zdaj presodil, ali so bile direktive o javnih naročilih res kr�ene.
In essence, as regards the pre-2000 purchases, Italy argues that they qualified as ‘in-house’, while with regard to the
Glede nakupov pred letom 2000 Italija trdi, da so bili ,‚in house‘‘, za nedavne nakupe pa trdi, da je neposredna oddaja naročil posledica mednarodnega vzdu�ja varnosti po 11. septembru 2001. Tako je treba civilne
16 — See Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle [2005] ECR I-1, paragraphs 49 and 50.
16 – Glej sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2005 v zadevi Stadt Halle (C-26/03, ZOdl., str. I-1, točki 49 in 50).
18 — As provided in Article 5(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 93/36.
18 – Kot je določeno v členu 5(1)(a)(ii) Direktive 93/36. Znesek v SDR je zna�a približno 162.000 EUR za leti 2002 in 2003.
COMMISSION v ITALY recent purchases, Italy submits that the direct awarding of contracts is a result of the international security climate following 11 September 2001.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI helikopterje izenačiti z voja�kimi.
The purchases were thus exempted from Community law under Article 296 EC.
Nakupi so bili zato izvzeti iz prava Skupnosti na podlagi člena 296 ES.
The 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/36 clearly notes that the negotiated procedure should be considered as exceptional and therefore applicable only in limited cases.
Dvanajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 93/36 jasno določa, da je postopek s pogajanji izjemoma dovoljen in da se ga zato lahko uporablja le v določenih primerih.
To that end, Article 6(2) and (3) of the Directive exhaustively and expressly lists the cases in which the negotiated procedure may be used without prior publication of a tender notice. 19
V ta namen člen 6(2) in (3) Direktive izčrpno in izrecno na�teva primere, v katerih se lahko uporabi postopek s pogajanji brez predhodne objave javnega razpisa. 19 b) Presoja
The Commission claims that the practice in question was ‘general’ and ‘systematic’ and alleges infringement of Directive 93/36 and of Directive 77/62 and of the other direct- ives applicable in the meantime.
Komisija trdi, da je bilo zadevno ravnanje, ‚splo�no‘‘ in ,‚sistematično‘‘ ter zatrjuje kr�itev Direktiv 93/36 in 77/62 ter ostalih direktiv, ki so se takrat uporabljale.
It follows that the practice of systematically awarding contracts directly to Agusta for the purchase of helicopters may well have lasted for some 30 years.
Iz tega sledi, da je lahko neposredna oddaja javnih naročil družbi Agusta za nakup helikopterjev trajala 30 let.
It should also be borne in mind that derogations from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the Treaty in connection with public supply contracts must be interpreted strictly.
Upo�tevati je treba, da je treba odstopanja od pravil, ki zagotavljajo učinkovitost pravic, ki jih daje Pogodba glede oddaje javnih naročil, ozko razlagati.
20In order not to deprive Directive 93/36 of its effectiveness, Member States cannot, therefore, provide for the use of the negotiated procedure in cases not provided for in that directive, or add new conditions to the cases expressly provided for by that directive which make that procedure easier to use.
20Da se Direktivi 93/36 ne bi odvzelo učinkovitosti, države članice ne morejo določiti uporabe postopka s pogajanji v primerih, ki v Direktivi niso določeni, ali dodati nove pogoje za primere, ki bi olaj�ali dostop do uporabe tega postopka.
21In addition, the burden of proving the actual
21 Nadalje mora dokazno breme za
19 — See Teckal, cited in footnote 14, paragraph 43, which states that: ‘the only permitted exceptions to the application of Directive 93/36 are those which are exhaustively and expressly mentioned therein (see, with reference to Directive 77/62, Case C-71/92 Commission v Spain [1993] ECR I-5923, paragraph 10).’
19 – Glej v opombi 14 navedeno sodbo Teckal, točka 43, v kateri je določeno, da so edine dovoljene izjeme od uporabe Direktive 93/36 tiste, ki jih izčrpno in izrecno na�teva (glede Direktive 77/62 glej sodbo z dne 17. novembra 1993 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-71/92, Recueil, str.
With reference to inter alia Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
I-5923, točka 10, in glede Direktive 93/37/EGS glej sodbo z dne 17. septembra 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji, C-323/96, Recueil, str.
54), see Case C-323/96 Commission v Belgium [1998] ECR I-5063, paragraph 34.
I-5063, točka 34).
20 — See Case 199/85 Commission v Italy [1987] ECR 1039, paragraph 14.
20 – Glej sodbo z dne 10. marca 1987 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-199/85, Recueil, str. I-1039, točka 14).
21 — See Case C-84/03 Commission v Spain [2005] ECR I-139, paragraphs 48, 58 and the operative part, and the caselaw cited therein.
21 – Glej sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-84/03, ZOdl., str. I-139, točki 48 in 58 ter navedena sodna praksa.
The Italian Government does not dispute the above practice.
Ne samo, da italijanska vlada tak�nemu ravnanju ugovarja, ampak tudi v prilogah obrambe potrjuje trditve Komisije glede tega.
Moreover, in the annexes to its defence Italy actually confirms the Commission’s contention in this respect.
Sledi, da je Italija uporabila postopek s pogajanji brez razpisnega postopka na stopnji Skupnosti.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyse whether or not Italy could lawfully derogate from the directive.
Tako je treba oceniti, ali je Italija utemeljeno ali neutemeljeno odstopila od Direktive.
Italy submits that these provisions are applicable, because the helicopters in question are ‘dual-use goods’, that is to say, goods capable of being used for both civil and military purposes.
23 Italija meni, da je v zadevi Leifer 24, ki se nana�a na odstopanje od člena 30 ES glede blaga z dvojno rabo, Sodi�če izrecno priznalo, da imajo države članice diskrecijsko pravico pri sprejemanju ukrepov za njihovo javno varnost, tako notranjo kot zunanjo.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether or not Italy meets the requirements expressly covered by the derogations provided for in the Treaty and/or in the directive on which it relies.
Nadalje bi bilo treba povedati, ali Italija uresniči ali ne uresniči zahtev, ki jih izrecno krijejo odstopanja, določena v Pogodbi in/ali v Direktivi, na podlagi katere države članice utemeljijo obrambo.
(a) Main arguments of the parties
Upravičene interesu a) Bistvene trditve strank
In that regard, Italy refers to the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Fiocchi munizioni v Commission, 25which states that the regime established by Article 296(1)(b) EC is intended to preserve the freedom of action of the Member States in certain matters affecting national defence and
Glede tega se Italija sklicuje na sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zadevi Fiocchi Munizioni 25, v kateri je določeno, da ureditev, ki jo določa člen 296(1)(b) ES, namerava ohraniti
Italy contends that the purchases of helicopters at issue meet the legitimate requirements of national interest foreseen by Article 296 EC as well as Article 2(1)(b) of the
Italija trdi, da nakup spornih helikopterjev ustreza upravičenim zahtevam v nacionalnem interesu, ki jih določata člen 296 ES in člen 2(1)(b) Direktive.
23 — Italy maintains that the fact that the military or paramilitary use of the helicopters in question is only an eventuality does not call in question their ‘non-civil’ character, since the need to ensure that the helicopters are suitable for military purposes imposes requirements from the order and procurement stage, especially as regards principles of secrecy.
23 – Italija trdi, da dejstvo, da do voja�ke ali paravoja�ke uporabe zadevnih helikopterjev pride le v skrajnem primeru, ne postavi pod vpra�aj njihovo „necivilno“ naravo, saj potreba po tem, da se zagotovi, da so helikopterji primerni za voja�ke namene določa zahteve iz faze objave in oddaje naročil, zlasti glede načel zaupnosti.
22 — Case 199/85 Commission v Italy, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 14.
24 – Sodba z dne 17. oktobra 1995 v zadevi Leifer (C-83/94, Recueil, str.
84), see Case C-394/02 Commission v Greece [2005] ECR I-4713, paragraph 33.
II-3951, točka 58).
24 — Case C-83/94 [1995] ECR I-3231, paragraph 35.25 — Case T-26/01 [2003] ECR II-3951, paragraph 58.
Glede Direktive 93/38/EGS glej nedavno sodbo z dne 2. junija 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (C-394/02, ZOdl., str. I-4713, točka 33).
COMMISSION v ITALY security.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI svobodo države članice glede določenih zadev narodne obrambe in varnosti.
Article 296(1)(b) EC confers on the Member States a particularly wide discretion in assessing the needs receiving such protection.
Člen 296(1)(b) ES daje državam članicam posebno �iroko diskrecijsko pravico pri odločanju o potrebi po takem varstvu.
The Commission submits that the helicopters’ only certain use is for civil purposes and that their military use remains only potential and uncertain.
Komisija trdi, da je edina gotova uporaba helikopterjev le v civilne namene ter da je voja�ki namen le mogoč in negotov.
Therefore Article 296 EC is not applicable.
Zato se člen 296 ES v tem primeru ne uporabi.
Even on the hypothesis that the supplies in question were of a military character, Article 296 EC would not allow an automatic derogation such as that applied by Italy in the circumstances of the present case.
Celo pod predpostavko, da so bili proizvodi v tem primeru voja�ke narave, naj člen 296 ES ne bi omogočil avtomatičnega odstopanja, kot je ta, ki ga je uporabila Italija v okoli�činah tega primera.
To remove an entire industrial sector from competition procedures in order to protect national security appears neither proportionate nor necessary.
Umik celotnega industrijskega sektorja iz konkurenčnih postopkov za za�čito državne varnosti ni niti sorazmeren niti nujen ukrep.
Second, Italy maintains that in view of the fact that the helicopters in question can be involved in the fight against terrorism as well as missions protecting public order the derogation under Article 2(1)(b) of the Directive is applicable.
Drugič, Italija trdi, da se glede dejstev, da so zadevni helikopterji lahko vključeni v boj proti terorizmu in misije za varstvo javnega reda, uporabi odstopanje iz člena 2(1)(b) Direktive.
It also invokes confidentiality requirements with regard to the purchases of the helicopters.
Navaja tudi zahteve po zaupnosti glede nakupa helikopterjev.
The Commission submits that Italy has not proven in the present case that requirements existed which justified the application of Article 30 EC and the ‘dual-use goods’ argument.
Komisija trdi, da Italija v tem primeru ni dokazala, da so obstajale zahteve, ki so upravičevale uporabo člena 30 ES in trditev glede „blaga z dvojno rabo“.
In addition, with regard to Article 2(1)(b) of the Directive and the argument that the divulgation of elements concerning the purchases at issue would be contrary to Italy’s essential interests, the Commission contends that Italy has not specified which ‘elements’ they may be.
Nadalje glede na člen 2(1)(b) Direktive in trditev, da bi bilo �irjenje kak�nih koli informacij v trenutku nakupa v nasprotju z bistvenimi interesi Italije, Komisija trdi, da Italija ni natančno določila, za katere ‚informacije‘ bi lahko �lo.
With regard to Article 296 EC, what is in question here is not ‘trade in arms, munitions and war material’ but rather purchases of helicopters intended for essentially civil use. Italy has not demonstrated that the situation
Glede na člen 296 ES tu ne gre za vpra�anje v zvezi s „proizvodnjo orožja, streliva in voja�kih sredstev“, ampak za nakup helikopterjev, namenjenih v glavnem za civilno uporabo, in Italija ni dokazala, da je položaj v tem primeru predstavljal ukrep, ki je potreben za za�čito bistvenih interesov, kot je varnost, ki