natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ASM Brescia maintains that neither Directive 98/30, implemented by Legislative Decree 164/2000, nor Directive 2003/55 imposes an obligation to abridge the dur -ation of concessions for the distribution of natural gas which were granted without competitive tendering.
Družba ASM Brescia zatrjuje, da niti Direktiva 98/30, prenesena z zakonsko uredbo 164/2000, niti Direktiva 2003/55 ne določata obveznosti skraj�anja koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, ki so bile podeljene brez predhodnega javnega razpisa.
It submits, therefore, that it was in the exercise of its discretion that the national legislature decided that those concessions would cease before their contractual expiry and fixed, for that purpose, a transitional period and the detailed rules for its application.
Meni, da je nacionalni zakonodajalec torej svobodno odločil, na eni strani, da koncesije potečejo pred rokom, določenim v pogodbi, na drugi strani pa določil prehodno obdobje in podrobna pravila za njegovo uporabo.
It adds that the early end of the concessions concerned and the consequent issue of invitations to tender for the award of new concessions are no guarantee of a higher degree of competition in the distribution of natural gas since any newly appointed distributor may, in some circumstances, favour the sales undertaking with which it is connected.
Dodaja, da predčasen potek zadevnih koncesij in posledična uvedba postopkov javnega razpisa za dodelitev novih koncesij ne omogočata zagotovitve vi�je stopnje konkurence pri distribuciji zemeljskega plina, ker lahko vsak novi distributer, če je potrebno, daje prednost prodajnemu podjetju, s katerim je povezan.
It submits that that difficulty can be resolved only by compliance with the distribution system operators’ duties of impartiality and neutrality laid down by Directive 2003/55 and, in particular, the right of access of third parties to the distribution system, as well as by the legal, administrative, operational and accounting separation as regards vendors of natural gas which are part of the same vertically integrated undertaking.
Meni, da je to težavo mogoče re�iti le ob upo�tevanju obveznosti nepristranskosti in nevtralnosti upravljavcev distribucijskega omrežja, ki sta določeni v Direktivi 2003/55, in zlasti s pravico do dostopa tretjih strank do distribucijskega omrežja ter z organizacijskopravnim in administrativnim ločevanjem ter ločevanjem funkcij in računovodstva pri prodajalcih zemeljskega plina, ki so sestavni del istega vertikalno integriranega podjetja.
The Commission also submits that Directive 2003/55 does not require the early cessation of concessions for the distribution of natural gas granted in breach of Community requirements.
Tudi Komisija meni, da Direktiva 2003/55 ne določa obveznosti predčasnega poteka koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, podeljenih ob kr�itvi zahtev Skupnosti.
It adds that, even if the combined provisions of Articles 13(1) and 33(2) of Dir -ective 2003/55 permitted the natural gas distribution system operator also to carry on the activity of supplying gas until 1 July 2007, that operator was none the less bound, under Article 12(2) of that directive, to treat with impartiality all the different operators on the natural gas market.
Dodaja, da čeprav določbe členov 13(1) in 33(2) Direktive 2003/55 upravljavcu distribucijskega omrežja zemeljskega plina dovolijo, da opravlja tudi dejavnost dobave plina do 1. julija 2007, pa ta na podlagi člena 12(2) te direktive v nobenem primeru ne sme različnih subjektov na trgu zemeljskega plina obravnavati pristransko.
Anigas points out that the deadline for the liberalisation of the natural gas market, fixed at 1 July 2007 by Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/55, simply imposes on the Member States the requirement that all purchasers of natural gas be eligible customers and Anigas submits that that directive does not require the termination of concessions for the distribution of natural gas which were granted without prior advertisement.
Anigas poudarja, da skrajni rok za liberalizacijo trga zemeljskega plina, in sicer 1. julij 2007, ki je določen v členu 23(1) Direktive 2003/55, državam članicam nalaga zgolj, da morajo biti vsi kupci zemeljskega plina upravičeni odjemalci, in meni, da ta direktiva ne določa odpovedi koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, ki naj bi bile podeljene brez predhodnega javnega razpisa.
It is clear both from the terms and from the scheme of Directive 2003/55 that its purpose is the completion of the internal market in the natural gas sector.
Iz besedila in strukture Direktive 2003/55 izhaja, da je njen namen doseči notranji trg na sektorju zemeljskega plina.
To that end, as the first sentence of Article 1(1) of that directive provides, it establishes common rules for the transmission, distribution, supply and the storage of natural gas.
Zato, kot določa njen člen 1(1), prvi stavek, ta direktiva določa skupna pravila za prenos, distribucijo, dobavo in skladi�čenje zemeljskega plina.
Article 23(1) of Directive 2003/55 sets out the calendar for the opening of the market for the supply of natural gas and provides, in particular, that the Member States must ensure that the eligible customers, that is to say those who are entitled to approach a supplier of their choice, are, from 1 July 2007, all customers.
Člen 23(1) Direktive 2003/55 določa časovni razpored dobave zemeljskega plina in zlasti to, da morajo države članice zagotoviti, da so upravičeni odjemalci, torej tisti, ki se imajo pravico obrniti na dobavitelja po lastni izbiri, vsi odjemalci.
The reply to the third question referred must therefore be that Directive 2003/55 does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from providing for the extension, on conditions which it lays down, of the length of the transitional period at the end of which the early cessation of a concession for the distribution of natural gas such as that in question in those proceedings must occur.
Na tretje vpra�anje je torej treba odgovoriti tako, da Direktiva 2003/55 ne nasprotuje temu, da ureditev države članice, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, določa podalj�anje – pod pogoji, ki so določeni v tej ureditvi – prehodnega obdobja, v katerem mora priti do predčasnega poteka koncesije za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari.
In those circumstances, it must also be held that neither Article 10 EC nor the principle of proportionality precludes such legislation.
V teh okoli�činah je treba tudi �teti, da člen 10 ES in načelo sorazmernosti ne nasprotujeta taki ureditvi.
ASM Brescia submits that the termination of concessions for the distribution of natural gas such as that in question in the main proceedings is a measure which may be decided, in the exercise of its independent discretion, by the national legislature.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim in drugim vpra�anjem, ki ju je treba preučiti skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, ali členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES ter načela enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti nasprotujejo ureditvi, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določa podalj�anje – pod pogoji, ki so določeni v tej ureditvi – prehodnega obdobja, v katerem pride do predčasnega poteka koncesije za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari.
ASM Brescia argues that the fixing of the transitional period, at the end of which the early cessation of the concessions concerned occurs, is intended to reconcile the achievement of that objective of opening the market in the natural gas sector
Družba ASM Brescia zatrjuje, da je namen določitve prehodnega obdobja, v katerem pride do predčasnega poteka zadevnih koncesij, uskladitev tega cilja odprtja trga
2008 — CASE C-347/06 to competition with the necessary safeguarding of the legitimate expectations of the holders of current concessions.
2008 – ZADEVA C-347/06 sektorja zemeljskega plina za konkurenco s potrebo po varovanju legitimnih pričakovanj imetnikov obstoječih koncesij.
ASM Brescia points out that, until the entry into force of Legislative Decree 164/2000, Italian law did not make the grant of concessions for the distribution of natural gas subject to advertisement and permitted, moreover, the adoption of concessions of very long duration.
Družba ASM Brescia določa, da italijansko pravo do začetka veljavnosti zakonske uredbe 164/2000 za podelitev koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina ni določalo javnosti in je poleg tega dovoljevalo podeljevanje koncesij za zelo dolgo obdobje.
It adds that, until the publication of Commission interpretative communication on concessions under Community law (OJ 2000 C 121, p.
Dodaja, da pravo Skupnosti do razlagalnega sporočila Komisije o koncesijah v pravu Skupnosti (UL 2000, C 121, str.
2) and the judgment in Case C-324/98 Telaustria and Telefonadress [2000] ECR I-10745, Community law gave no indications that duties of transparency and publicity would be imposed on public authorities, by virtue of Community law, in the award of public service concessions.
2) in sodbe z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Telaustria in Telefonadress (C-324/98, Recueil, str. I-10745) ni zajemalo navedb, v skladu s katerimi bi imeli javni organi na podlagi prava Skupnosti obveznost preglednosti in javnosti pri podeljevanju koncesij za storitve javne službe.
ASM Brescia notes, next, that Decree-Law 273/2005 actually only deferred for two years the end of the transitional period provided for by Article 15(5) of Legislative Decree 164/2000 from 31 December 2005 to 31 December 2007 and, under certain conditions, from 31 December 2007 to 31 December 2009.
Dalje, družba ASM Brescia opozarja, da je v bistvu uredba-zakon 273/2005 zgolj za dve leti podalj�ala skrajni rok za prehodno obdobje iz člena 15(5) zakonske uredbe 164/2000, in sicer z 31. decembra 2005 na 31. december 2007 in pod določenimi pogoji z 31. decembra 2007 na 31. december 2009.
It submits that such a deferment is, inherently and by its effects, of a limited extent, having regard, in particular, to the residual contractual durations, frequently very long, of the concessions concerned, and that it does not affect the balance of the interests of the parties
Meni, da ima tako podalj�anje samo po sebi in zaradi svojih učinkov omejen obseg zlasti ob upo�tevanju preostalega obdobja, določenega v pogodbi, ki je pogosto zelo dolgo, zadevnih koncesij, in
ASM BRESCIA disproportionately.
ASM BRESCIA da ne vpliva nesorazmerno na ravnovesje interesov strank.
It submits that such extension is also, in any event, a discretionary measure.
Poudarja, da je v vsakem primeru to podalj�anje tudi diskrecijski ukrep.
ASM Brescia notes, finally, that concessions for the distribution of natural gas, the expiry of which precedes the end of that transitional period, are not extended, that, under Legislative Decree 164/2000, the end of the transitional period provided for by Article 15(5) of that decree could be later than that which results from the application of Decree-Law 273/2005 and that the latter’s adoption enhanced legal certainty by clarifying the legal scheme of that transitional period.
Nazadnje družba ASM Brescia opozarja, da se koncesije za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, ki potečejo pred iztekom navedenega prehodnega obdobja, podalj�ajo le, če bi se v skladu z zakonsko uredbo 164/2000 prehodno obdobje iz člena 15(5) te zakonske uredbe izteklo pozneje, kot je določeno v uredbi-zakonu 273/2005, in da je sprejetje zadnjenavedene omogočilo okrepitev pravne varnosti, s tem da je pojasnilo pravno ureditev v navedenem prehodnem obdobju.
The Commission argues, for its part, that the main proceedings concern public service concessions and that such concessions are subject to the fundamental rules of the EC Treaty, in particular to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, and to the principles of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality and equal treatment between tenderers which imply, in particular, a duty of transparency which enables the concessiongranting public authority to ensure that those principles are complied with (Case C-410/04 ANAV [2006] ECR I-3303, paragraph 21).
Komisija zatrjuje, da se spor v postopku v glavni stvari nana�a na koncesije za storitve javnih služb in da za te veljajo temeljna pravila Pogodbe ES, zlasti člena 43 ES in 49 ES ter načeli prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva in enakega obravnavanja ponudnikov, ki zajemata zahtevo po preglednosti, ki javnim organom, ki podeljujejo koncesijo, omogoča, da zagotovijo spo�tovanje teh načel (sodba z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi ANAV, C-410/04, ZOdl., str. I-3303, točka 21).
It points out that the Court considered that such duty of transparency consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the concession of services to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed (ANAV, cited above, paragraph 21).
Poudarja, da je Sodi�če �telo, da ta zahteva pomeni, da se v korist vseh potencialnih ponudnikov zagotovi ustrezna stopnja javnosti, ki koncesijo za storitve odpre za konkurenco in omogoča nadzor nad tem, ali so bili postopki podelitve izvedeni nepristransko (zgoraj navedena sodba ANAV, točka 21).
The Commission submits that failure to terminate a public service concession granted without prior advertisement is also contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, and to the principles of nondiscrimination, equal treatment and transparency.
Komisija meni, da je to, da koncesija za storitev javnih služb, podeljena brez predhodnega javnega razpisa, ni bila odpovedana, tudi v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES ter z načeli prepovedi diskriminacije, enakega obravnavanja in preglednosti.
It adds that Article 86(1) EC precludes legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for public service concessions granted in breach of the advertising requirements imposed by Community law to be kept in force.
Dodaja, da člen 86(1) ES nasprotuje pravilom, kot so ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določajo ohranitev koncesij za storitve javnih služb, podeljenih ob kr�itvi zahtev po javnosti, ki jih določa pravo Skupnosti.
Anigas submits, for its part, that Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC and the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency do not preclude a deferment of the transitional period such as that provided for by the legislation at issue in the main proceedings.
Anigas zatrjuje, da členi 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES ter načela enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti ne nasprotujejo podalj�anju prehodnega obdobja, kot je ta, ki ga določa ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari.
It points out that the conditions laid down in Article 15(7) of Legislative Decree 164/2000, which permit the extension of the transitional period provided for by Article 15(5) of that decree, are set in a body of measures the purpose of which is the creation of a competitive market in natural gas.
Poudarja, da pogoji iz člena 15(7) zakonske uredbe 164/2000, ki omogočajo podalj�anje prehodnega obdobja iz člena 15(5) te zakonske uredbe, spadajo med ukrepe, katerih cilj je doseganje konkurenčnega trga z zemeljskim plinom.
Anigas submits that compliance with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations requires, in any event, that the early cessation of concessions for the distribution of natural gas, such as that in question in the main proceedings, takes effect only at the end of a transitional period.
Anigas meni, da se za spo�tovanje načela legitimnih pričakovanj v vsakem primeru zahteva, da do predčasnega poteka koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, pride �ele po izteku prehodnega obdobja.
A public service concession, such as that in question in the main proceedings, is outside the scope of the directives on the different categories of public contracts (see, particularly, Case C-231/03 Coname [2005] ECR I-7287, paragraph 16).
Koncesija storitev javnih služb, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ne spada na področje uporabe direktiv v zvezi z različnimi kategorijami javnih naročil (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 21. julija 2005 v zadevi Coname, C-231/03, ZOdl., str. I-7287, točka 16).
The Court has however held that public authorities are bound, when they envisage granting such a concession, to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination on the grounds of nationality, in particular (see, particularly, to that effect, Telaustria and Telefonadress, cited above, paragraph 60; Coname, cited above, paragraph 16; Case C-458/03 Parking Brixen [2005] ECR I-8585, paragraph 46; and ANAV, paragraph 18).
Sodi�če je vendarle razsodilo, da morajo javni organi, ko nameravajo podeliti tako koncesijo, na splo�no spo�tovati temeljna pravila Pogodbe ES in predvsem načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva (glej zlasti v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Telaustria in Telefonadress, točka 60, in Coname, točka 16, sodbo z dne 13. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Parking Brixen, C-458/03, ZOdl., str. I-8585, točka 46, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo ANAV, točka 18).
More particularly, since such a concession is of a certain crossborder interest, its award, in the absence of any transparency, to an undertaking located in the Member State to which the contracting authority belongs, amounts to a difference in treatment to the detriment of undertakings which might be interested in that concession but which are located in other Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-507/03 Commission v Ireland [2007] ECR I-9777, paragraph 30).
Bolj podrobno, če je taka koncesija v določenem čezmejnem interesu, pomeni njena popolnoma netransparentna podelitev podjetju, ki je v državi članici naročnika, različno obravnavanje v �kodo podjetij, ki bi jih lahko ta koncesija zanimala, vendar so v drugi državi članici (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. novembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski, C-507/03, ZOdl., str. I-9777, točka 30).
Unless it is justified by objective circumstances, such a difference in treatment, which, by excluding all undertakings located in another Member State, operates mainly to the detriment of the latter undertakings, amounts to indirect discrimin -ation on the basis of nationality, prohibited under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (Commission v Ireland, cited above, paragraph 31).
Razen če je upravičeno z objektivnimi okoli�činami, tako različno obravnavanje, ki je z izključitvijo vseh podjetij iz drugih držav članic predvsem njim v �kodo, pomeni posredno diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, ki je na podlagi členov 43 ES in 49 ES prepovedana (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Irski, točka 31).
In addition, Article 86(1) EC precludes Member States, in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which they grant special or exclusive rights, from maintaining in force national legislation contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Člen 86(1) ES nasprotuje temu, da države članice glede javnih podjetij ali podjetij, katerim so odobrile posebne ali izključne pravice, ohranijo v veljavi nacionalno ureditev, ki je v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
First, it is certainly possible that the concession in question in the main proceedings is, having regard to the criteria identified by the Court, particularly the place where the work is to be carried out and the economic interest at stake, of a certain crossborder interest (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-147/06 and C-148/06 SECAP and Santorso [2008] ECR I-3565, paragraph 31).
Na eni strani torej nikakor ni izključeno, da je koncesija v postopku v glavni stvari glede na merila, ki jih je določilo Sodi�če, zlasti kraj, kjer se izvaja, in njen gospodarski interes, v določenem čezmejnem interesu (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 15. maja 2008 v združenih zadevah SECAP in Santorso, C-147/06 in C-148/06, ZOdl., str. I-3565, točka 31).
That is all the more true as the national legislation is applicable without distinction to all concessions.
To velja toliko bolj, če je nacionalno ureditev mogoče uporabljati brez razlikovanja za vse koncesije.
Second, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by the deferment which it involves of the award of a new concession by a public procedure, constitutes, at least during the period of that deferment, a difference in treatment to the detriment of the undertakings which might be interested in such a concession and are located in a Member State other than that to which the contracting authority belongs.
Na drugi strani, ureditev, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, s podalj�anjem, ki ga določa v zvezi s podelitvijo nove koncesije z javnim razpisom, vsaj med obdobjem tega podalj�anja pomeni različno obravnavanje v �kodo podjetij, ki bi jih lahko ta koncesija zanimala, vendar so v državi članici, ki ni država članica naročnika.
That difference in treatment can, however, be justified by objective circumstances, such as the necessity of complying with the principle of legal certainty.
Vendar je to različno obravnavanje lahko upravičeno z objektivnimi okoli�činami, kot je potreba po spo�tovanju načela pravne varnosti.
In that regard, in a scenario such as that of the main proceedings, three sets of factors must be taken into account.
V zvezi s tem je treba v primeru, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, upo�tevati tri vrste dejavnikov.
First, Directive 2003/55 does not require existing concessions for the distribution of gas to be called in question.
Prvič, Direktiva 2003/55 ne določa obstoječih koncesij za distribucijo plina.
Secondly, it is clear from the order for reference that the concession granted in 1984 was to have effect until 2029.
Drugič, iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da bi morala imeti koncesija, podeljena leta 1984, učinke do konca leta 2029.
Thus, its early termination pursuant to Decree-Law 273/2005, the effect of which will be that the Comune di Rodengo Saiano will have to make the award of a new concession subject to competitive tendering, could constitute enhanced compliance with Community law.
Predčasna odpoved na podlagi uredbe-zakona 273/2005, katere učinek bo, da bo Comune di Rodengo Saiano morala podelitev nove koncesije podvreči konkurenci, bi lahko v največji meri spo�tovala pravo Skupnosti.
Thirdly, the principle of legal certainty requires, particularly, that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects, in particular where they may have negative consequences on individuals and undertakings (see, to that effect, Case C-17/03 VEMW and Others [2005] ECR I-4983, paragraph 80 and the caselaw cited).
Tretjič, načelo pravne varnosti zahteva zlasti, da so pravna pravila jasna in natančna in da je njihova uporaba predvidljiva, predvsem, če lahko imajo neugodne posledice za posameznike in podjetja (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 7. junija 2005 v zadevi VEMW in drugi, C-17/03, Recueil, str. I-4983, točka 80, in navedena sodna praksa).
It must, from that point of view, be noted that the concession in question in the main proceedings was granted in 1984, at a time when the Court had not yet held that it followed from primary Community law that contracts with a cross-order interest might be subject to duties of transparency in the situations referred to in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the present judgment.
Ob upo�tevanju tega je treba ugotoviti, da je bila koncesija v postopku v glavni stvari podeljena leta 1984, Sodi�če pa v tem obdobju �e ni odločilo, da je iz primarnega prava Skupnosti izhajalo, da bi lahko bile za pogodbe v določenem čezmejnem interesu ob upo�tevanju pogojev, navedenih v točkah 59 in 60 te sodbe, določene zahteve po preglednosti.