natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The creditors, in other words businesses, in relation to which public authorities are debtors can equally claim that because of late payment they cannot operate properly and cannot have guarantees as to the liquidity of their operations.
Tudi upniki, torej podjetja, ki jim organi javne uprave dolgujejo denar, se lahko sklicujejo na to, da zaradi zamud pri plačilih ne morejo normalno delovati in da ne morejo zagotavljati likvidnosti svojega poslovanja.
Punctual payment is extremely important for such businesses, because in the event of insolvency they face the threat of bankruptcy, which by contrast does not apply to public authorities.
Pravočasni prejem plačil je za ta podjetja izjemnega pomena, saj jim v primeru nelikvidnosti grozi stečaj, ki organov javne uprave ne ogroža.
Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the Member States, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Direct- ive 2000/35, may maintain or bring into force provisions which are more favourable to the creditor; conversely, the adoption by a Member State of provisions more favourable to the debtor can be regarded as contrary to the directive.
Poleg tega je treba upo�tevati, da lahko države članice v skladu s členom 6(2) Direktive 2000/35 obdržijo ali sprejmejo bolj ugodne določbe za upnika; a contrario lahko sklepamo, da je v nasprotju z direktivo, če država članica sprejme določbe, ki so bolj ugodne za dolžnika.
Kranjc cites Paolo, who states that the difference between infringement and circumvention of the law consists in the fact that infringement is conduct contrary to the law, whereas circumvention is conduct apparently complying with the law but in fact entailing evasion of the rule.
51 – Sodna praksa glede polnega učinka (effet utile) direktiv je bogata. V zvezi s tem glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 12. septembra 1996 v združenih zadevah Gallotti in drugi (C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C-119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C-141/95, C-154/95 in C-157/95, Recueil, str.
52 the Member States must abstain ‘from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of [the] Treaty’.
52 vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev […] pogodbe“.
Similar obligations, on the basis of which the Member States are required to comply with Community law even in matters within their competence, are to be found, for example, in the fields of direct taxation, 53 social security systems 54 and education. 55
Podobno zahtevo za spo�tovanje prava Skupnosti na področjih, ki spadajo v pristojnost držav članic, najdemo, na primer, tudi na področju neposrednega obdavčenja, 53sistemov socialne varnosti 54ali izobraževanja 55.
Directive 2000/35 makes no reference to other types of claim and hence, with
Na koncu naj poudarim, da Direktiva 2000/35 ne more nasprotovati sporni italijanski zakonodaji v celoti, temveč le na
53 — Direct taxation as such does not fall within the competence of the Community, but the Member States must nevertheless exercise their competence in compliance with Community law.
53 – Področje neposrednega obdavčenja kot tako ne spada pod pristojnost Skupnosti, vendar morajo države članice svojo pristojnost vseeno izvr�evati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In that regard, see, for example, Joined Cases C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C-119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C-141/95, C-154/95 and C-157/95 Gallotti and Others [1996] ECR I-4345, paragraph 14; Case C-386/03 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-6947, paragraph 28; Case C-212/04 Adeneler and Others [2006] ECR I-6057, paragraph 93; Case C-250/06 United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others [2007] ECR I-11135, paragraph 45; and Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri [2007] ECR I-11767, paragraph 80.
Delitev pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami namreč ne pomeni, da lahko slednje pri izvajanju svojih pristojnosti sprejemajo predpise, s katerimi nasprotujejo namenu direktive. Države članice morajo na podlagi prvega odstavka člena 10 ES sprejeti „vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz […] pogodbe ali so posledica ukrepov institucij Skupnosti.“ Prav tako se morajo države članice v skladu z drugim odstavkom člena 10 ES „vzdržati
54 — For example, in Case C-372/04 Watts [2006] ECR I-4325, paragraph 92, the Court established that ‘whilst it is not in dispute that Community law does not detract from the power of the Member States to organise their social secur- ity systems, and that, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine the conditions in which social security benefits are granted, when exercising that power Member States must comply with Community law, in particular the provisions on the freedom to provide services’.
54 – V sodbi z dne 16. maja 2006 v zadevi Watts (C-372/04, ZOdl., str. I-4325, točka 92) je Sodi�če, na primer, odločilo: „Čeprav ni sporno, prvič, da pravo Skupnosti ne vpliva na pristojnost držav članic, da organizirajo svoje sisteme socialne varnosti, in, drugič, da v odsotnosti usklajenosti na ravni Skupnosti vsaka država članica določi pogoje pridobitve storitev s področja socialne varnosti, morajo države članice pri izvr�evanju te pristojnosti vendarle spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti, predvsem določbe o svobodi opravljanja storitev.“ Glej tudi sodbo z dne 12. julija 2001 v zadevi Smits in Peerbooms (C-157/99, Recueil, str.
See also Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [2001] ECR I-5473, paragraph 46, and Case C-385/99 Müller-Fauré and van Riet [2003] ECR I-4509, paragraph 17.
I-5473, točka 46) in sodbo z dne 13. maja 2003 v zadevi Müller-Fauré in van Riet (C-385/99, Recueil, str. I-4509, točka 17).
55 — In that regard, the Court has stated that although the Member States have power to define the content of education and the organisation of education systems, when exercising that power they must comply with Community law.
55 – V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če poudarilo, da so države članice sicer pristojne za določanje vsebine poučevanja in organizacijo svojih izobraževalnih sistemov, vendar pa morajo pri izvajanju te pristojnosti spo�tovati pravo Skupnosti. Glej, na primer, sodbo z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Schwarz in Gootjes-Schwarz (C-76/05, ZOdl., str.
On the effet utile, see also Baron, F. and others, Union Européenne 20062007. Memento pratique Francis Lefebvre, Editions Francis Lefebvre, Levallois, 2005, p.
Glede effet utile glej tudi Baron, F. in drugi, Union Européenne 2006-2007. Memento pratique Francis Lefebvre, Editions Francis Lefebvre, Levallois 2005, str.
CAFFARO confer on the Community general powers to regulate the procedures for forced execution not involving cross-border elements.
CAFFARO področju ratione materiae te direktive, torej ko gre za nesporno terjatev iz trgovinskega posla.
regard to such claims, it cannot affect the Italian legislation.
Na druge vrste terjatev se Direktiva 2000/35 ne nana�a in zato glede teh ne more vplivati na italijansko zakonodajo.
However, the finding that Directive 2000/35 conflicts with the legislation at issue in the main proceedings does not
Vendar pa ugotovitev, da Direktiva 2000/35 nasprotuje zakonodaji, kakr�na je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, Skupnosti ne daje splo�ne pristojnosti za urejanje izvr�ilnih postopkov brez čezmejnega elementa.
On the basis of the foregoing, I propose that the Court rule that Direct- ive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996 under which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title relating to an uncontested payment owed by a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against the said authority before 120 days have elapsed from the service of the enforceable title on that authority.
Glede na navedene ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj odloči, da je treba Direktivo 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih razlagati tako, da nasprotuje določbi nacionalne zakonodaje, kot je člen 14 zakonskega dekreta �t. 669/1996, na podlagi katerega upnik, ki je pridobil izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve, ki jo javna uprava dolguje na podlagi trgovinskega posla, ne more zahtevati izvr�be proti navedeni upravi pred potekom 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova tej upravi.
2008 — CASE C-265/07
2008 – ZADEVA – C-265/07
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Tribunale civile di Roma (Italy), made by decision of 21 May 2007, received at the Court on 4 June 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-265/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Tribunale civile di Roma (Italija) z odločbo z dne 21. maja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 4. junija 2007, v postopku
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 March 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 13. marca 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
2008 — CASE C-265/07 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA – C-265/07 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Direct- ive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive 2000/35/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. junija 2000 o boju proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih (UL L 200, str. 35).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Caffaro Srl (‘Caffaro’), the creditor, and Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C (‘Azienda’), an Italian public authority, the debtor, concerning forced execution by way of the attachment of assets that the debtor held at Banca di Roma SpA (‘Banca di Roma’), the third party in the hands of which the attachment was effected.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Caffaro Srl (v nadaljevanju: Caffaro), ki je upnik, in Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C (v nadaljevanju: Azienda), italijansko javno upravo, ki je dolžnik, v zvezi s prisilno izvr�bo z rubežem terjatev Aziende do Banca di Roma SpA (v nadaljevanju: Banca di Roma), ki je dolžnikov dolžnik in pri katerem je bil opravljen rubež.
Recital 15 in the preamble to Directive 2000/35 states:
Petnajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 2000/35 določa:
‘This Directive only defines the term “enforceable title” but does not regulate the various procedures of forced execution of such a title and the conditions under which forced execution of such a title can be stopped or suspended.’
„Ta direktiva samo opredeljuje izraz ‚izvr�ilni naslov‘, ne ureja pa različnih postopkov prisilne izvr�be takega naslova in pogojev, pod katerimi se prisilno izvr�bo takega naslova lahko ustavi ali zadrži.“
Article 2 of Directive 2000/35 provides:
Člen 2 Direktive 2000/35 določa:
(5) “enforceable title” means any decision, judgment or order for payment issued by a court or other competent authority, whether for immediate payment or payment by instalments, which permits the creditor to have his claim against the debtor collected by means of forced execution; it shall include a decision, judgment or order for payment that is provisionally enforceable and remains so even if the debtor appeals against it.’
5. ‚izvr�ilni naslov‘ je katera koli odločba, sodba ali plačilni nalog, ki jo ali ga izda sodi�če ali drugi pristojni organ, ne glede na to, ali gre za takoj�nje plačilo ali plačilo po obrokih, in ki omogoča upniku, da izterja svojo terjatev do dolžnika s pomočjo prisilne izvr�be; izraz vključuje odločbe, sodbe ali plačilne naloge, ki so izvr�ljivi začasno in ostanejo začasno izvr�ljivi, četudi se dolžnik pritoži.“
Recital 23 in the preamble to the directive states:
Triindvajseta uvodna izjava te direktive določa:
‘Article 5 of this Directive requires that the recovery procedure for unchallenged claims be completed within a short period of time in conformity with national legislation, but does not require Member States to adopt a specific procedure or to amend their existing legal procedures in a specific way.’
„Člen 5 te direktive predpisuje, da se mora postopek izterjave nespornih terjatev zaključiti v kratkem času v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo, vendar ne predpisuje, da bi morale države članice sprejeti določen postopek ali na določen način spremeniti svoje obstoječe pravne postopke.“
Article 5 of the directive provides:
Člen 5 navedene direktive določa:
Member States shall ensure that an enforceable title can be obtained, irrespect- ive of the amount of the debt, normally within 90 calendar days of the lodging of the creditor’s action or application at the court or other competent authority, provided that the debt or aspects of the procedure are not disputed.
Države članice zagotovijo, da se lahko izvr�ilni naslov pridobi, ne glede na znesek dolga, običajno v 90 koledarskih dneh potem, ko upnik vloži tožbo ali zahtevo pri sodi�ču ali drugem pristojnem organu, pod pogojem, da dolg ali vidiki postopka niso sporni.
The respective national legislation, regulations and administrative provisions shall apply the same conditions for all creditors who are established in the European Community.
Ustrezni nacionalni zakoni in drugi predpisi uporabljajo enake pogoje za vse upnike s sedežem v Evropski skupnosti.
This Article shall be without prejudice to the provisions of the Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.’
Ta člen ne posega v določbe Bruseljske konvencije o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.“
‘State authorities and non-economic public bodies shall complete the procedures for the execution of court rulings and arbitration awards having executive effect and entailing an obligation to pay sums of money within 120 days of service of the enforceable title.
„Upravni organi države in javni neekonomski organi zaključijo postopek za izvr�bo sodnih odločb in izvr�ljivih arbitražnih odločb, ki vsebujejo obveznost plačila določene vsote denarja v 120 dneh, �teto od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova.
Before expiry of that period the creditor shall not be entitled to proceed to forced execution against the said authorities and bodies nor may enforcement orders be put in place.’
Pred iztekom tega roka upnik nima pravice začeti izvr�be proti zgoraj navedenim upravnim in drugim organom, pa tudi opomin ne more biti izdan.“
Caffaro, which had an enforceable title issued in accordance with the Italian rules transposing Directive 2000/35 into national law, brought enforcement proceedings against Azienda.
Družba Caffaro, ki je pridobila izvr�ilni naslov, izdan v skladu z italijanskimi predpisi, s katerimi je bila v nacionalno pravo prenesena Direktiva 2000/35, je proti Aziendi sprožila postopek prisilne izvr�be.
The forced execution took the form of an attachment of Azienda’s assets held at the Banca di Roma, the third party, on the basis of a writ of summons to appear before the referring court, notified to the third party and the debtor.
Prisilna izvr�ba se je izvedla v obliki rubeža terjatev Aziende do dolžnikovega dolžnika, Banca di Roma, na podlagi vabila na obravnavo pred predložitvenim sodi�čem, ki je bilo vročeno dolžnikovemu dolžniku in Aziendi.
At the hearing on 13 June 2006, the Banca di Roma appeared before the referring court to which it confirmed that it held funds belonging to Azienda and declared that those funds had been frozen.
Na obravnavi 13. junija 2006 je Banca di Roma predložitvenemu sodi�ču potrdila, da ima Azienda na njenih računih sredstva in da je izvedla rubež.
Also at that hearing the referring court noted that forced execution had been initiated before the expiry of the period of 120 days, calculated from service of the enforceable title and provided for by Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996.
Na tej obravnavi je predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da se je postopek prisilne izvr�be začel, ne da bi se iztekel rok 120 dni, računano od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova, predviden v členu 14 uredbe zakona �t. 669/1996.
Taking the view that Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996 does not comply with Directive 2000/35, Caffaro requested that that provision should not be applied or, alternatively, that a reference be made to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the compatibility of that national provision with the directive.
Ker je družba Caffaro menila, da člen 14 uredbe zakona �t. 669/1996 ni v skladu z Direktivo 2000/35, je predlagala, naj se ta določba ne uporabi ali, podredno, naj se izda predložitveni sklep za razlago Sodi�ča, da bi se slednje lahko izreklo glede skladnosti navedene nacionalne določbe z zgoraj navedeno direktivo.
In those circumstances, the Tribunale civile di Roma decided to stay proceedings and to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling, which may be summarised as follows:
V teh okoli�činah je Tribunale civile di Roma prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je mogoče povzeti tako:
‘Must Directive 2000/35 be interpreted as meaning that it precludes Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996, pursuant to which a creditor in possession of an enforceable title relating to an unchallenged claim against a public authority as remuneration for a commercial transaction cannot proceed to forced execution against that public authority before a period of 120 days has elapsed since service of the enforceable title on that authority?’
„Ali je treba Direktivo 2000/35 razlagati tako, da nasprotuje členu 14 uredbe zakona �t. 669/1996, na podlagi katere upnik, ki je pridobil izvr�ilni naslov za izterjavo nesporne terjatve do javne uprave, nastale na podlagi trgovinskega posla, ne more začeti izvr�be proti tej upravi pred potekom 120-dnevnega roka od vročitve izvr�ilnega naslova navedeni upravi?“
It must be observed, as a preliminary point, that Directive 2000/35 must be interpreted in the light of the aims pursued by the directive and the system it establishes (see, to that effect, Case C-465/04 Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali [2006] ECR I-2879, paragraph 17).
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, da je treba Direktivo 2000/35 razlagati glede na njen cilj in sistem, ki ga uvaja (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 23. marca 2006 v zadevi Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali, C-465/04, ZOdl., str. I-2879, točka 17).
In that connection, it is common ground that Directive 2000/35 simply aims to harmonise as far as possible certain payment rules and practices in the Member States in order to combat late payment in commercial transactions.
Glede na to je nesporno, da je namen Direktive 2000/35 zgolj, da se za boj proti zamudam pri plačilih v trgovinskih poslih v največji možni meri uskladijo določena pravila in prakse plačevanja v državah članicah.
Moreover, that directive refers to a number of areas in which national law is to apply.
Poleg tega ta direktiva na več mestih napotuje na uporabo nacionalne ureditve.
Such is the case, in particular, as is clear from recital 15 in the preamble, with regard to the various procedures of forced execution of an enforceable title and the conditions under which forced execution of such a title can be stopped or suspended (Commission v Italy, cited above, paragraph 24).
Kot izhaja iz petnajste uvodne izjave te direktive, gre za to zlasti v primeru različnih postopkov prisilne izvr�be izvr�ilnega naslova in pogojev, pod katerimi se prisilna izvr�ba tega naslova lahko ustavi ali zadrži (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Italiji, točka 24).
In particular, in the framework of the system established by Directive 2000/35, Article 5 thereof merely requires that the Member States ensure that an enforceable title, as defined in Article 2(5) of the directive, can be obtained normally within 90
Predvsem morajo države članice v okviru sistema, ki je uveden z Direktivo 2000/35, v skladu s členom 5 te direktive zagotoviti le, da se lahko izvr�ilni naslov, kot je opredeljen v členu 2, točka 5, te direktive, običajno pridobi v 90 koledarskih dneh,
2008 — CASE C-265/07 calendar days of the lodging of the creditor’s action or application at the court or other competent authority, provided that the debt or aspects of the procedure are not disputed.
2008 – ZADEVA – C-265/07 potem ko upnik vloži tožbo ali zahtevo pri sodi�ču ali drugem pristojnem organu, pod pogojem, da dolg ali vidiki postopka niso sporni.
It follows that, as regards the recovery procedures for unchallenged claims, the directive harmonises only the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained, but does not govern forced execution procedures, which remain subject to the national law of the Member States.
Iz tega izhaja, da je v zvezi s postopkom izterjave nespornih terjatev z navedeno direktivo usklajen le rok za pridobitev navedenega izvr�ilnega naslova, ne da bi bil urejen postopek prisilne izvr�be, ki je �e vedno podvržen nacionalnemu pravu držav članic.
It is clear that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings has no effect whatever on the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained.
Ugotoviti pa je treba, da se z nacionalno določbo, kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, nikakor ne vpliva na rok, v katerem se lahko pridobi izvr�ilni naslov.
To the contrary, such a provision specifically presupposes that the creditor is already in possession of such a title.
S to določbo se ravno predpostavlja, da upnik tak�en naslov že ima.
That conclusion cannot be called into question by the argument of the Commission of the European Communities that Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996, providing for the suspension of forced execution for a period of 120 days, concerns a stage in the procedure for the recovery of the claim prior to forced execution, so that it falls within the scope of Directive 2000/35.
Te ugotovitve ne more spodbiti trditev Komisije Evropskih skupnosti, da se člen 14 uredbe zakona �t. 669/1996, v katerem je predvideno zadržanje prisilne izvr�be za obdobje 120 dni, nana�a na fazo postopka izterjave terjatve, ki je predhodna stopnja postopka prisilne izvr�be, tako da spada na področje uporabe Direktive 2000/35.
Even if, as the Commission maintains, the said Article 14 has the effect of deferring the commencement of the forced execution procedure that would in no way affect the period within which an enforceable title can be obtained.
Četudi bi namreč predpostavljali, da je, kot zatrjuje Komisija, posledica člena 14 odložitev začetka postopka prisilne izvr�be, to v ničemer ne bi vplivalo na rok za pridobitev izvr�ilnega naslova.
As is clear from paragraph 18 of this judgment, that period is the only aspect of the procedure for recovery of unchallenged debts which is harmonised by Article 5 of the directive.
Ta rok pa je, kot izhaja iz točke 18 te sodbe, edini vidik postopka izterjave nespornih terjatev, ki je usklajen s členom 5 navedene direktive.
Furthermore, although it is apparent from the foregoing that an enforceable title can, under Article 14 of Decree-Law No 669/1996, be temporarily deprived of its execu-
Poleg tega iz zgoraj navedenega sicer izhaja, da se lahko izvr�ilnemu naslovu na podlagi člena 14 uredbe zakona �t. 669/1996 začasno odvzame izvr�ilno moč, vendar
CAFFARO tive effect, it does not follow however, as the Commission submits, that the effective protection of the creditor is jeopardised in disregard of Directive 2000/35.
CAFFARO pa to, v nasprotju z mnenjem Komisije, ne pomeni, da bi se pod vpra�aj postavilo učinkovito varstvo upnika, s čimer bi se kr�ilo Direktivo 2000/35.