natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, although the national court refers to a ‘concession’ for the distribution of the natural gas service, it should be borne in mind that that term has an independent definition in Community law.
Čeprav se predložitveno sodi�če sklicuje na „koncesijo“ za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, je poleg tega treba spomniti, da je ta pojem v pravu Skupnosti samostojno opredeljen.
It is, thus, for the national court to verify whether the contract concluded between the municipality and ASM Brescia comes within the definition of ‘service concession’, resulting from the Court’s caselaw, 6 which adopts the definition set out in the interpretative communication of the Commission of the European Communities according to which ‘there is a concession when the operator bears the risk involved in operating the service in question (establishing and exploiting the system), obtaining a significant part of revenue from the user, particularly by charging fees in any form.
Predložitveno sodi�če bo torej moralo preveriti, ali je konvencija, sklenjena med zadevno občino in podjetjem ASM Brescia, v skladu z definicijo „koncesije storitve“, kot izhaja iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča, 6ki povzema definicijo v razlagalnem sporočilu Komisije Evropskih skupnosti, v skladu s katero „koncesija obstaja, ko dobavitelj nosi tveganja, ki so vezana na zadevno storitev (vzpostavitev storitve in njeno izkori�čanje), ki jo zaračunava uporabniku v kakr�ni koli obliki, zlasti kot pristojbine.
As is the case for works concessions, the way in which the operator is remunerated is a factor which helps to determine who bears the exploitation risk.’ 7
Način plačila dobavitelju je, enako kot velja za koncesijo gradenj, element, ki omogoča določitev prevzema poslovnega tveganja.“ 7
The adoption of the first directives on electricity in 1996 and on gas in 1998 was intended to achieve the completion of the internal market, which presupposed that public monopolies other than those concerning infrastructure would be abandoned in favour of free and undistorted competition in those fields.
Sprejetje prvotnih direktiv o elektriki leta 1996 in o plinu leta 1998 se je nana�alo na oblikovanje ustreznega notranjega trga, s katerim je bila predvidena odprava državnih monopolov, ki niso monopoli glede infrastruktur, v korist proste in neizkrivljene konkurence na teh področjih.
However, those directives allowed the Member States a certain discretion in terms of market opening, organisation of access to the network and market regulation.
Vendar je bilo s temi direktivami državam članicam dopu�čenega nekaj prostora glede odpiranja trga, organizacije dostopa do omrežja in tržne ureditve.
The Commission stated that ‘[p]ractice demonstrates that this situation leads to distortion of competition, as some Member States’ markets are more
Komisija je poudarila, da „se je v praksi izkazalo, da to stanje povzroča izkrivljanje konkurence, ker je trg v nekaterih državah članicah bolj odprt za pravo konku-
2, point 2.2).
I-7083, točka 21).
It replaces Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
Nadome�ča Direktivo 92/50/EGS Sveta z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev (UL L 209, str. 1).
9 Directive 2003/55 was adopted in that on Member States by that directive. More specifically, should that text be regarded as imposing on Member States an obligation to bring such concessions to an end early and, only if so, from what moment is that obligation imposed and according to what detailed rules?
Še posebno, ali je treba sklepati, da se s tem predpisom državam članicam nalaga, naj predhodno razveljavijo take koncesije, in samo v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora, od katerega trenutka dalje in kako se ta obveznost nalaga?
context in order to introduce progressively the total openingup of the natural gas market, by enabling consumers freely to choose their suppliers and suppliers freely to deliver to their customers.
renco kot drugod“. 9 V teh okoli�činah je bila sprejeta Direktiva 2003/55, da bi postopno popolnoma odprli trg z zemeljskim plinom, kar pomeni, da bi potro�nikom ponudili možnost proste izbire dobavitelja in dobaviteljem prosto dobavo proizvodov odjemalcem.
10 The objective of that new directive is to adopt ‘concrete provisions … to ensure a level playing field and to reduce the risks of market dominance and predatory behaviour, ensuring non-discriminatory transmission and distribution tariffs, through access to the network on the basis of tariffs published prior to their entry into force, and ensuring that the rights of small and vulnerable customers are protected’.
10Cilj te nove direktive je sprejeti „konkretne določbe, s katerimi bi zagotovili enake konkurenčne pogoje in zmanj�ali tveganje glede prevladujočega položaja na trgu ter plenilskega obna�anja, zagotovili nepristranske tarife za prenos in distribucijo z dostopom do omrežja na podlagi tarif, ki so objavljene pred začetkom veljavnosti, in za�čitili pravice malih, ranljivih odjemalcev“.
11 To that end, Directive 2003/55 abolished the option for Member States to negotiate access to the gas networks and obliges them to separate legally the operation of the transmission and distribution systems from other parts of the business.
11Z Direktivo 2003/55 države članice nimajo več možnosti pogodbenega dostopa do plinskih omrežij in so obvezane pravno ločiti izkori�čanje omrežij za prenos in distribucijo od drugih vidikov dejavnosti.
With regard to the first point, all the parties agree that there is nothing in Dir -ective 2003/55 which indicates that there is an obligation to bring the disputed concessions to an end early.
Glede prve točke se obe stranki strinjata, da v Direktivi 2003/55 ni nobenega znamenja, ki bi kazalo na obveznost predhodne prekinitve spornih koncesij.
However, the national court raises the question of the relevance, particularly, of Article 23(1)(c) of Directive 2003/55 which might, in its view, impose such an obligation on Member States from 1 July 2007.
Vendar se nacionalno sodi�če spra�uje zlasti o ustreznosti člena 23(1)(c) Direktive 2003/55, s katerim bi se po njegovem mnenju državam članicam taka obveznost lahko naložila od 1. julija 2007.
That article stipulates: ‘Member States shall ensure that the eligible customers are … from 1 July 2007, all customers.’
V tem členu je določeno: „države članice zagotovijo, da se za upravičene odjemalce �tejejo […] od 1. julija 2007 vsi odjemalci“.
It follows from this that, by that deadline, all customers are to be presumed, in accordance with Community law, to have access to the supplier of their choice for the purchase of natural gas.
Iz tega izhaja, da se v skladu s pravom Skupnosti od tega datuma �teje, da imajo vsi odjemalci za nakup zemeljskega plina dostop do dobavitelja po lastni izbiri.
None the less, even before examining whether the directive precludes the introduction of a transitional period during which the service concessions in dispute must be ter -minated early, it is necessary to examine, first of all, the extent of the obligations imposed
Zato je treba, celo preden se preveri, ali navedena direktiva nasprotuje uvedbi prehodnega obdobja, v katerem je treba predčasno odpovedati koncesije za sporne storitve, najprej preveriti obseg obveznosti držav članic, ki so jim s to direktivo nalo-
9 — Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common pos -ition of the Council on the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC and concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Dir -ective 98/30/EC (SEC(2003) 161 final).
9 – Sporočilo Komisije Evropskemu parlamentu v skladu s členom 251(2), drugi pododstavek, Pogodbe ES o skupnem stali�ču, ki ga je sprejel Svet zaradi sprejetja direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede skupnih pravil za notranji trg z električno energijo, in o razveljavitvi Direktive 96/92/ES ter o skupnem stali�ču, ki ga je sprejel Svet zaradi sprejetja Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30/ES [SEC(2003) 1471 konč.].
10 — Recital 4 in the preamble to Directive 2003/55.
10 – Četrta uvodna izjava Direktive 2003/55.
See, also, Case T-87/05 EDP v Commission [2005] ECR II-3745. paragraph 110.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi EDP proti Komisiji (T-87/05, ZOdl., str. II-3745, točka 110).
However, the interpretation of that provision suggested by the national court appears to me to be wrong as regards contracts for the distribution of natural gas.
Vendar se mi razlaga te določbe, ki jo je predlagalo predložitveno sodi�če, zdi zgre�ena glede na pogodbe za distribucijo zemeljskega plina.
That article relates, in fact, only to the supply and not to the distribution of natural gas.
Ta člen se namreč ne nana�a na distribucijo zemeljskega plina, ampak le na njegovo dobavo.
Therefore, no obligation can be inferred from that provision for the Member States to put an end to distribution contracts granted without any competitive tendering proced- ure.
Zato iz te določbe ni mogoče sklepati o nobeni obveznosti držav članic, naj razveljavijo pogodbe za distribucijo, podeljene brez javnega razpisa.
As the Commission has rightly pointed out, the deadline of 1 July 2007 applied to supply contracts cannot be transposed to
Tako kot upravičeno navaja Komisija, datuma 1. julij 2007, ki se nana�a na pogodbo o dobavi, ni mogoče prenesti na pogodbe o distribuciji,
Therefore, the answer to the third question referred must be that Directive 2003/55 does not require the early termination of gas distribution contracts originally granted without any competitive tendering proced- ure, but it cannot be held that it expressly precludes such a possibility.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje odgovoriti, da se z Direktivo 2003/55 ne nalaga predhodna odpoved pogodb za distribucijo plina, na začetku podeljenih brez javnega razpisa, in zato tudi ni mogoče sklepati, da se z njo taki možnosti izrecno nasprotuje.
In addition, no other provision of Dir -ective 2003/55 expressly supports an obligation to terminate existing concessions early.
Poleg tega se z nobeno drugo določbo Direktive 2003/55 izrecno ne podpira obveznost predčasne odpovedi veljavnih koncesij.
The articles of Directive 2003/55 which refer to the distribution of natural gas, in particu- lar Article 4(2) and Articles 11 and 18, are restricted principally to providing for the designation of distribution system operators having regard to considerations of efficiency and economic balance (Article 11) according to objective and non-discriminatory criteria (Article 4(2)).
V členih Direktive 2003/55, ki se nana�ajo na distribucijo zemeljskega plina, zlasti v členu 4(2) ter členih 11 in 18, je v glavnem določeno, da se upravljavci distribucijskega omrežja imenujejo ob upo�tevanju učinkovitosti in gospodarskega ravnotežja (člen 11) objektivno in brez diskriminacije (člen 4(2)).
Moreover, the operators are to ensure third-party access to the system without discrimination and with complete transparency with regard to the tariffs and the calculation methods applied (Article 18).
Upravljavci morajo poleg tega zagotoviti tretjim osebam dostop do omrežja brez diskriminacije in povsem pregledno, zlasti glede tarif in metodologije za njihov izračun (člen 18).
However, according to the Court’s settled caselaw, non-application of the provisions of secondary legislation does not preclude the application of ‘the fundamental rules of the EC Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination on the grounds of nationality, in particular’.
Vendar glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča neobstoj uporabe določb v sekundarni zakonodaji ne ovira uporabe „temeljnih pravil Pogodbe na splo�no in zlasti prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva“.
12Further, ‘the provisions of the Treaty applying to public service concessions, in particular Art -icles 43 EC and 49 EC, and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality are specific expressions of the principle of equal treatment’.
12Iz nje �e izhaja, da „so določbe pogodbe, ki se lahko uporabijo za koncesije za storitve javnih služb, zlasti člena 43 ES in 49 ES, ter prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva poseben izraz načela enakega obravnavanja“.
13In other words, the selection of the concession-holder must comply with the principles of the Treaty.
13Z drugimi besedami, koncesionarja je treba izbirati ob upo�tevanju načel Pogodbe.
Consequently, the reply to the questions referred by the national court must be sought on the basis of those principles intended to guarantee, in the main proceedings, the objective of free movement.
Zato je treba odgovor na vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, poiskati na podlagi teh načel, ki v glavni stvari zagotavljajo prost pretok.
12 — See, inter alia, Telaustria and Telefonadress, paragraph 60; Parking Brixen, paragraph 49; Coname, paragraph 16; and Commission v Italy, paragraph 22.
12 – Glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Teleaustria in Telefonadress (točka 60); Parking Brixen (točka 49); Coname (točka 16) in Komisija proti Italiji (točka 22).
13 — Parking Brixen, paragraph 48, and Commission v Italy, paragraph 23.
13 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Parking Brixen (točka 48) in Komisija proti Italiji (točka 23).
Consequently, in the light of the foregoing considerations, it is impossible to infer from the wording of that text alone any obligation on Member States to terminate early the disputed distribution concessions which were granted before its adoption.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve je zato samo iz branja tega besedila nemogoče sklepati o kakr�ni koli obveznosti držav članic, da predhodno razveljavijo sporne koncesije za distribucijo, podeljene pred njegovim sprejetjem.
Notwithstanding that statement, it is necessary to add that Directive 2003/55 none the less does not preclude such termination.
Ne glede na to ugotovitev je treba dodati, da se z Direktivo 2003/55 tak�ni odpovedi ne nasprotuje.
The fact remains that the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2003/55 do not enable it to be determined whether Community law precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
To ne spremeni dejstva, da se z zgoraj navedenimi določbami Direktive 2003/55 ne omogoča ugotovitev, ali pravo Skupnosti nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je ta, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari.
C — The first two questions
C – Prvi dve vprašanji
From that point of view, answering the questions referred involves determining, initially, whether national legislation — which provides for the maintenance in force of existing concessions until the expiry of a transitional period introduced for the purpose of bringing those concessions to an end early — constitutes an obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment and, if so, to examine, subsequently, whether such a restriction may nevertheless be accepted as an exceptional measure expressly provided for in Articles 45 EC and 46 EC, or justified, in accordance with the Court’s caselaw, by overriding requirements relating to the public interest.
Glede na to odgovor na zastavljena vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje vključuje, prvič, ugotovitev, ali nacionalna zakonodaja, v kateri je predvidena ohranitev veljavnih koncesij do konca prehodnega obdobja, preurejenega tako, da se zadevne koncesije predhodno končajo, pomeni oviro prostemu opravljanju storitev in svobodnemu ustanavljanju, in v primeru pritrdilnega odgovora preučitev, drugič, ali je taka omejitev vendarle lahko dopustna na podlagi ukrepov odstopanja, ki so izrecno določeni v členih 45 ES in 46 ES ali upravičeni v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča iz nujnih razlogov splo�nega interesa.
Although in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling the Court should restrict itself to an abstract interpretation of Community law, it must nevertheless provide the national court with the information needed to adjudicate in the dispute.
Čeprav se mora Sodi�če v okviru predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe omejiti na abstraktno razlago prava Skupnosti, mora predložitvenemu sodi�ču vendarle podati potrebno gradivo za razre�itev spora.
In that regard, the Court has repeatedly held that it is competent to give the national court full guidance on the interpretation of Community law in order to enable it to determine the compatibility of its national legislation with Community law.
V tem smislu je Sodi�če večkrat menilo, da je pristojno predložitvenemu sodi�ču priskrbeti vse razlage iz prava Skupnosti, ki lahko predložitvenemu sodi�ču omogočijo presojo skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje s pravom Skupnosti.
15In my opinion, it is necessary in the present case to set out the different stages in the legal reasoning which the national court will have to follow in order to decide the case in the main proceedings.
15V tem primeru se mi zdi potrebno natančneje določiti različne korake pravnega sklepanja, ki jih bo nacionalno sodi�če moralo uporabiti za odločanje v sporu o glavni stvari.
For the sake of completeness, it should also be pointed out that there is a link between the national legislation at issue in this case and intra-Community trade inasmuch as operators established in other Member States might be interested in par -ticipating in the distribution of gas in Italy.
Poleg tega velja tudi opozoriti, da v tej zadevi sporna nacionalna zakonodaja pomeni vez s trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, ker bi bili dobavitelji iz drugih držav članic lahko zainteresirani za sodelovanje v dejavnosti distribucije plina na italijanskem ozemlju.
The questions referred thus fall within the scope of Community law, although all the elements of the dispute in the main procee -dings are confined to a single Member State. 16
Postavljena vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje tako spadajo na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti, čeprav so vsi elementi spora o glavni stvari znotraj ene same države članice. 16
14 — The application of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC is perfectly justified inasmuch as the concession was concluded by a municipal authority acting in its capacity as a public authority.
14 – Uporaba členov 43 in 49 Pogodbe je povsem upravičena, če je koncesijo sklenila občina kot organ oblasti.
Therefore, the principles of freedom of movement, arising from those articles apply.
Zato se uporabljajo načela prostega pretoka, kot izhajajo iz teh členov.
See the confirmation of this analysis, which accordingly excludes the application of Article 81 EC to concession contracts such as those at issue, in Case 30/87 Bodson [1988] ECR 2479, paragraph 18.
Glej potrditev tovrstne analize, ki ustrezno izključuje uporabo člena 81 Pogodbe v koncesijskih pogodbah, kot so zadevne, v sodbi z dne 4. maja 1988 v zadevi Bodson (30/87, Recueil, str. 2479, točka 18).
16 — See the Court’s reconciling interpretation on that point, Case C-87/94 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I-2043, paragraph 33; Parking Brixen, paragraph 55; and Centro Europa 7, paragraph 66.
16 – V zvezi s tem glej spravljivo razlago Sodi�ča, sodbo z dne 25. aprila 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (C-87/94, Recueil, str. I-2043, točka 33); zgoraj navedeno sodbo Parking Brixen (točka 55) in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Centro Europa 7 (točka 66).
The existence of an obstacle transparency.
Obstoj ovire liti, če ne izpolnjuje zahtev po preglednosti.
In addition, the direct grant of a concession, without the possibility for any undertaking established in another Member State to gain access to relevant information concerning the concession for the purpose of expressing its interest, is contrary to the principles which stem from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Tudi neposredna podelitev koncesije, ne da bi bil podjetju z morebitnim sedežem v drugi državi članici omogočen dostop do ustreznih informacij glede zadevne koncesije, da bi lahko izkazalo svoj interes, je v nasprotju z načeli iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
The requirements which stem from Art -icles 43 EC and 49 EC and from the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency have been set out repeatedly by the Court in relation to concession contracts, in particular in the judgments in Telaustria and Telefonadress, Coname and Parking Brixen.
Zahteve iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES ter iz načel enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti je Sodi�če glede koncesijskih pogodb večkrat natančneje opredelilo, zlasti v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Telaustria in Telefonadress, Coname in Parking Brixen.
Those decisions lay down the principle that thereafter the grant of any concession be subject to at least a minimum level of competition, by ensuring compliance with a minimum obligation of transparency and equal treatment in order to comply with the objective of removing obstacles to the freedom to provide services.
S temi sodnimi praksami je določeno načelo, da se odslej podelitev vsake koncesije podvrže minimalni konkurenci ob upo�tevanju obveznosti minimalne preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja, da bi se izpolnil cilj odprave ovir v prostem opravljanju storitev.
First, the judgment in Telaustria and Telefonadress laid down the principle of a minimum obligation of transparency on the contracting authority which consists ‘in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed’.
Najprej je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Telaustria in Telefonadress postavljeno načelo obveznosti minimalne preglednosti, ki jo ima naročnik in ki mora „v korist potencialnih ponudnikov zagotoviti ustrezno stopnjo javnosti, ki koncesijo za storitve odpre za konkurenco in omogoča nadzor nad tem, ali so bili postopki podelitve izvedeni nepristransko“.
17That requirement, which stems from the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination, in particu- lar, does not require systematic recourse to a call for tenders but is limited to requiring a sufficient degree of advertising.
17S to zahtevo, ki na splo�no izhaja iz temeljnih pravil Pogodbe in zlasti iz načela prepovedi diskriminacije, se ne zahteva sistematično zatekanje k javnemu razpisu, ampak se le zagotavlja ustrezna stopnja obve�čenosti javnosti.
That position was later confirmed in more detail by the judgment in Coname, which specifically concerned the grant of a concession for the operation of the public gas distribution service.
To stali�če je bilo nato potrjeno in natančneje opredeljeno v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Coname, ki se izrecno nana�a na podelitev koncesije za upravljanje javne storitve distribucije plina.
The Court ruled, in that case, that a concession cannot be granted without complying with the requirements of
V tej zadevi je Sodi�če razsodilo, da se koncesija ne more pode-
Likewise, it
18 – Točka 52.
17 — Paragraph 62.
Sodba, potrjena z zgoraj navedeno sodbo ANAV (točka 22).
ASM BRESCIA held that the renewal of a public service concession without inviting competing bids between the potential operators also constituted an infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
ASM BRESCIA vitelji tudi kr�itev členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
19It is thus established that any award of a new concession and any renewal of an existing concession without a sufficient degree of advertising constitute a breach of the principles of freedom of movement.
19Tako je ugotovljeno, da vsaka podelitev nove koncesije in vsaka obnovitev veljavne koncesije brez ustrezne stopnje obve�čenosti javnosti pomenita kr�itev načela prostega pretoka.