natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 1 March 2006, Fernwärme Wien instituted a public procurement tendering procedure for the installation of refrigeration plants in a future commercial office complex in Vienna, stating that the Austrian legislation relating to public procurement did not apply to the contract in question. Ing.
Družba Fernwärme Wien je 1. marca 2006 objavila razpis za postavitev klimatskih naprav v načrtovanem poslovnem in trgovskem centru na Dunaju z navedbo, da se avstrijska zakonodaja o javnih naročilih za zadevno naročilo ne uporablja. Družba Ing.
Aigner participated in this proced- ure by submitting a tender.
Aigner se je prijavila na razpis ter oddala ponudbo.
Having been informed, on 18 May 2006, that its offer would no longer be considered because of negative references, it challenged that decision before the referring court, submitting that the Community rules on public procurement should be applied.
Ker je bila 18. maja 2006 obve�čena, da njena ponudba zaradi obstoja neugodnih elementov ne bo obravnavana, je to odločbo izpodbijala pred predložitvenim sodi�čem in trdila, da bi bilo treba uporabiti pravila Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil.
The national court notes that the activities of Fernwärme Wien with regard to the operation of a fixed district heating network fall indisputably within the scope of Directive 2004/17.
Predložitveno sodi�če ugotavlja, da dejavnost družbe Fernwärme Wien v zvezi z uporabljanjem fiksnega omrežja toplovodnega ogrevanja nesporno sodi na področje uporabe Direktive 2004/17.
However, its activities with regard to the refrigeration plants do not fall within the field of application of that directive.
Nasprotno pa njena dejavnost v zvezi s postavitvami klimatskih naprav ne sodi na področje uporabe te direktive.
It therefore asks whether the latter activities are also covered by the provisions of that directive by application, mutatis mutandis, of the principles laid down in Case C-44/96 Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others [1998] ECR I-73, paragraphs 25 and 26, an approach commonly referred to in legal literature as the ‘contagion theory’.
Zato se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali sodijo slednje dejavnosti prav tako v domet omenjene direktive, ob uporabi, mutatis mutandis, načel iz sodbe z dne 15. januarja 1998 v zadevi Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi (C-44/96, Recueil, str. I-73, zlasti točki 25 in 26), torej pristop, ki se v doktrini običajno imenuje „teorija kontaminacije“.
In accordance with the interpretation given by the referring court of that judgment, where one activity carried out by a body falls within the scope of the public procurement directives, all the other activities carried out by that body, irrespective of their possible industrial or commercial character, are also covered by those directives.
Če sodi neka dejavnost osebe na področje uporabe direktive v zvezi z javnimi naročili, sodijo v skladu z razlago te sodbe, ki jo je podalo predložitveno sodi�če, tudi vse ostale dejavnosti te osebe, neodvisno od njihove morebitne industrijske ali tržne narave, na področje uporabe direktive v tej zadevi.
If the judgment in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others refers only to contracting authorities and, more specifically, the concept of ‘bodies governed by public law’, in the sense that, where a body meets needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, it must be considered a ‘body governed by public law’ within the meaning of the Community rules, irrespective of whether it carries out, in parallel, other activities of a different nature, the referring court asks whether Fernwärme Wien constitutes a body governed by public law, that is to say a contracting authority, within the meaning of Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18.
V primeru, da bi zgoraj navedena sodba Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi zadevala le naročnike in zlasti pojem „osebe javnega prava“, v tem smislu, da je treba v skladu s pravom Skupnosti naročnika, ki zadovoljuje potrebe splo�nega interesa in nima industrijske ali tržne narave, obravnavati kot „osebo javnega prava“ ne glede na to, ali vzporedno opravlja druge dejavnosti, ki nimajo te narave, se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je družba Fernwärme Wien oseba javnega prava, torej naročnik v smislu direktiv 2004/17 ali 2004/18.
Finally, the referring court asks whether, when a body carries out activities not having an industrial or commercial character and, in parallel, activities in competitive conditions, whether it is possible to distinguish the latter activities and not to include them in the scope of the Community rules on public procurement, it is possible to establish a separation between those two types of activities and, accordingly, the absence of economic interference between them.
Nazadnje se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je v primeru, ko naročnik opravlja dejavnosti, ki nimajo industrijske ali tržne narave, in vzporedno dejavnosti, ki so podvržene konkurenčnim zakonitostim, slednje dejavnosti mogoče razlikovati in jih izključiti iz področja uporabe pravil Skupnosti v zvezi z javnimi naročili, in ali je mogoče ločevati med tema dvema vrstama dejavnosti in tako ugotoviti neobstoj njunega medsebojnega gospodarskega vpliva.
In that regard, the referring court refers to
V zvezi s tem se predložitveno sodi�če sklicuje na točko 68 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa z dne 21. aprila 2005 v zadevi, v kateri je bil zaradi umika predloga za sprejetje predhodne
AIGNER point 68 of the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs of 21 April 2005 in the case which gave rise, following the withdrawal of the reference for a preliminary ruling, to the order for removal from the register of 23 March 2006 (Case C-174/03 Impresa Portuale di Cagliari), where it is proposed that the principle arising from the judgment in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others be tempered in that manner.
AIGNER odločbe izdan sklep o izbrisu z dne 23. marca 2006, Impresa Portuale di Cagliari (C-174/03), kjer je predlagano, naj se v zvezi s tem omili načelo iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Public Procurement Review Chamber of the Province of Vienna) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na te ugotovitve je Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
By this question, the referring court asks whether a contracting entity within the meaning of Directive 2004/17, which carries on activities in one of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive, is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive for the award of contracts to the activities carried out by that entity in parallel, under competitive conditions, in sectors not governed by those provisions.
S tem vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali mora naročnik v smislu Direktive 2004/17, ki opravlja dejavnost iz enega od sektorjev, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 te direktive, uporabiti postopek iz omenjene direktive za oddajo javnih naročil v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik v pogojih konkurence opravlja vzporedno v sektorjih, za katere ne veljajo zgoraj omenjene določbe.
In order to answer that question, it must be noted that Directives 2004/17 and 2004/18 have noteworthy differences with regard both to the entities subject to the rules laid down in those respective directives and to their nature and scope.
Da bi lahko odgovorili na to vpra�anje, je treba opozoriti, da sta direktivi 2004/17 in 2004/18 med seboj opazno različni tako v zvezi s tem, za katere naročnike velja ureditev, ki izhaja iz teh direktiv, kot tudi glede njune narave in področja uporabe.
With regard, firstly, to the entities to which the rules of those directives apply, it should be noted that, unlike Directive 2004/18 which, by virtue of the first subparagraph of Article 1(9) thereof, applies to ‘contracting authorities’, Directive 2004/17 refers, in Article 2 thereof, to ‘contracting entities’.
Prvič, glede naročnikov, za katere velja ureditev iz omenjenih direktiv, je treba ugotoviti, da so v nasprotju z Direktivo 2004/18, ki se na podlagi člena 1(9), prvi pododstavek, uporablja za „[javne] naročnike“, naročniki iz Direktive 2004/17 v njenem členu 2 opredeljeni kot „naročniki“.
It is apparent from Article 2(2)(a) and (b) that Directive 2004/17 applies not only to contracting entities which are ‘contracting authorities’, but also to those which are ‘public undertakings’ or undertakings which operate on the basis of ‘special or exclusive rights granted by a competent authority of a Member State’, in so far as all those entities pursue one of the activities listed in Articles 3 to 7 thereof.
Iz istega člena 2(2)(a) in (b) izhaja, da se ta direktiva ne uporablja le za naročnike, ki so „javni organi“, ampak tudi za tiste, ki so „javna podjetja“ ali delujejo na podlagi „posebnih ali izključnih pravic, ki jim jih podeli pristojni organ države članice“, če je ena od dejavnosti teh naročnikov katera koli dejavnost iz členov od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
Secondly, it follows from Articles 2 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 that the coordination for which it provides does not extend to all spheres of economic activity, but relates to specifically defined sectors, which, moreover, is confirmed by the fact that that directive is commonly referred to as the ‘sectoral directive’.
Drugič, iz členov od 2 do 7 Direktive 2004/17 izhaja, da se usklajevanje, ki se izvaja s to direktivo, ne nana�a na vsa področja gospodarske dejavnosti, ampak zadeva le posebej opredeljene sektorje, na kar nakazuje dejstvo, da se ta direktiva običajno imenuje „sektorska direktiva“.
However, the scope of Directive 2004/18 includes almost all sectors of economic life, thus justifying its being commonly known as the ‘general directive’.
Nasprotno pa so na področje uporabe Direktive 2004/18 vključeni skoraj vsi gospodarski sektorji, kar upravičuje njeno običajno poimenovanje kot „splo�na direktiva“.
In such circumstances, it must be stated at this early stage that the general scope of Directive 2004/18 and the restricted scope of Directive 2004/17 require the provisions of the latter to be interpreted narrowly.
V teh okoli�činah je treba že na začetku ugotoviti, da je treba zaradi splo�ne uporabnosti Direktive 2004/18 in omejene uporabnosti Direktive 2004/17 slednjo razlagati restriktivno.
The boundaries between the fields of application of those two directives are also drawn by explicit provisions.
Meje med področji uporabe teh dveh direktiv so začrtane z izrecnimi določbami.
Thus, Article 20(1) of Directive 2004/17 provides that the latter does not apply to contracts which the contracting entities award for purposes other than the pursuit of their activities as described in Articles 3 to 7 thereof.
Člen 20(1) Direktive 2004/17 določa, da se ta direktiva ne uporablja za javna naročila, ki jih naročniki oddajo za druge namene kot je opravljanje svojih dejavnosti v sektorjih, ki so opisani v členih od 3 do 7.
The equivalent of that provision in Directive 2004/18 is the first paragraph of Article 12, which provides that that directive does not apply to public contracts which are awarded by contracting authorities exercising one or more of the activities referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17.
Tej določbi ustreza člen 12, prvi odstavek, Direktive 2004/18, ki določa, da se ta direktiva ne uporablja za javna naročila, razen za oddajo naročil za dejavnosti javnih naročnikov, ki opravljajo eno ali več dejavnosti iz členov od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17.
Consequently, the abovementioned provisions leave no room for application, in the context of Directive 2004/17, of the approach known as ‘contagion theory’ which was
Zato zgoraj omenjene določbe, v okviru Direktive 2004/17, ne dovoljujejo nobene uporabe pristopa, ki se imenuje „teorija kontaminacije“, ki se je razvila na podlagi
2008 — CASE C-393/06 developed following the judgment in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others.
2008 – ZADEVA C-393/06 zgoraj navedene sodbe Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi.
That judgment was given by the Court in the context of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
To sodbo je Sodi�če izdalo v okviru Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje (UL L 199, str.
54), that is to say in an area which at present falls within the ambit of Directive 2004/18.
54), torej na področju, ki zdaj sodi na področje uporabe Direktive 2004/18.
Accordingly, as rightly observed by, inter alia, the Hungarian, Austrian and Finnish Governments and by the Commission of the European Communities, only those contracts awarded by an entity which is a ‘contracting entity’ within the meaning of Directive 2004/17, in connection with and for the exercise of activities in the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive, fall within the field of application thereof.
Kot so upravičeno opozorile zlasti avstrijska, madžarska in finska vlada ter Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, sodijo na področje uporabe Direktive 2004/17 le naročila, ki jih je naročnik, ki je „naročnik“ v smislu te direktive, oddal v zvezi z dejavnostmi in njihovim opravljanjem v sektorjih, ki so na�teti v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
Moreover, that is the conclusion which emerges also from Joined Cases C-462/03 and C-463/03 Strabag and Kostmann [2005] ECR I-5397, paragraph 37).
Tak�en sklep izhaja prav tako iz sodbe z dne 16. junija 2005 v zdruŽenih zadevah Strabag in Kostmann (C-462/03 in C-463/03, ZOdl., str.
In that judgment, the Court held that, if a contract does not concern the exercise of one of the activities governed by the sectoral directive, it will be governed by the rules laid down in the directives concerning the award of public supply, works or service contracts, as applicable.
I-5397, točka 37). V tej sodbi je Sodi�če odločilo, da če se naročilo ne nana�a na opravljanje dejavnosti, ki so urejene v sektorski direktivi, bo zanj veljala ureditev, ki jo, odvisno od primera, predvideva direktiva v zvezi z oddajo javnih naročil storitev, gradenj ali blaga.
Having regard to the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that a contracting entity, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17, is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive only for the award of contracts which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive.
Ob upo�tevanju prej�njih ugotovitev je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora naročnik, v smislu Direktive 2004/17, uporabiti postopek iz te direktive le za oddajo javnih naročil, ki so v zvezi z dejavnostmi, ki jih ta naročnik opravlja v enem ali več sektorjih, navedenih v členih od 3 do 7 omenjene direktive.
By its second question, the referring court asks whether an entity such as Fernwärme Wien is to be regarded as a body governed by public law within the meaning of Direct- ive 2004/17 or of Directive 2004/18.
Z drugim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je treba naročnika, kot je družba Fernwärme Wien, opredeliti kot osebo javnega prava v smislu Direktive 2004/17 ali Direktive 2004/18.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, as is apparent from paragraph 5 of this judgment, the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1)(a) of Direct- ive 2004/17 and the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18 contain identical definitions of the concept of ‘body governed by public law’.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, kot izhaja iz točke 5 te sodbe, da je v določbah člena 2(1)(a), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/17 in člena 1(9), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2004/18 pojem „oseba javnega prava“ opredeljen enako.
It is clear from those provisions that a ‘body governed by public law’ is any body which, firstly, was established for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character, secondly, has legal personality and, thirdly, is financed, for the most part, by the State, regional or local authorities, or other bodies governed by public law, or subject to management supervision by those bodies, or having an administrative, managerial or supervisory board, more than half of whose members are appointed by the State, regional or local authorities, or by other bodies governed by public law.
Iz teh določb izhaja, da pomeni „oseba javnega prava“ vsako osebo, ki je, prvič, ustanovljena samo zato, da zadovoljuje potrebe splo�nega interesa in nima industrijske ali tržne narave, ki je, drugič, pravna oseba in jo, tretjič, pretežno financirajo državni, regionalni ali lokalni organi ali druge osebe javnega prava ali je njeno vodstvo pod nadzorom teh organov ali pa ima upravni, vodstveni ali nadzorni odbor, katerega več kakor polovico članov imenujejo državni, regionalni ali lokalni organi ali druge osebe javnega prava.
In accordance with the caselaw of the Court, those three conditions are cumulative (Case C-237/99 Commission v France [2001] ECR I-939, paragraph 40, and the caselaw cited).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča morajo biti hkrati izpolnjeni vsi trije pogoji (sodba z dne 1. februarja 2001 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-237/99, Recueil, str. I-939, točka 40 in navedena sodna praksa).
Furthermore, since the aim of the directives in relation to awarding public contracts is to avoid, inter alia, the possibility that a body financed or controlled by the State, regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law may choose to be guided by considerations other than economic ones, the concept of a ‘body governed by public law’ must be interpreted in functional terms (Case C-337/06 Bayerischer Rundfunk and Others [2007] ECR I-11173, paragraphs 36 and 37, and the caselaw cited).
Poleg tega, ker je cilj direktiv Skupnosti na področju oddaje javnih naročil zlasti izključitev možnosti, da bi organizacijo, ki jo financira ali nadzoruje država, regionalni ali lokalni organi ali druge organizacije javnega prava, vodili drugi motivi kot ekonomski, je treba pojem „oseba javnega prava“ razlagati namensko (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2007 v zadevi Bayerischer Rundfunk in drugi, C-337/06, ZOdl., str. I-11173, točki 36 in 37 ter navedena sodna praksa).
In the present case, it is common ground that the latter two criteria established by the rules set out in paragraph 36 of the present judgment are fulfilled, given that Fernwärme Wien has legal personality and that the City of Vienna wholly owns the share capital of that entity and monitors its economic and financial management.
V tej zadevi je treba ugotoviti, da sta izpolnjeni zadnji dve merili, ki izhajata iz ureditve, navedene v točki 36 te sodbe, saj je družba Fernwärme Wien pravna oseba, ki je v celoti v lasti mesta Dunaj, ki nadzira gospodarsko in finančno poslovanje tega podjetja.
It remains to be considered whether the entity was established specifically to meet needs in the general interest, not having an industrial or commercial character.
Poleg tega je treba preučiti, ali je bilo to podjetje ustanovljeno samo zato, da zadovoljuje potrebe splo�nega interesa in nima industrijske ali tržne narave.
With regard, firstly, to the purpose of the establishment of the entity in question and the nature of the needs met, it is appropriate to note that, as is apparent from the documents before the Court, Fernwärme Wien was established specifically for the purpose of supplying district heating to homes, public institutions, offices, undertakings etc. in the City of Vienna by means of the use of energy produced by the destruction of waste.
Prvič, v zvezi z ustanovitvijo zadevnega naročnika in naravo potreb, ki jih zadovoljuje, je treba ugotoviti, tako kot izhaja iz spisa, ki je bil predložen Sodi�ču, da je bila družba Fernwärme Wien ustanovljena s posebnim namenom zagotavljanja ogrevanja stanovanj, javnih zgradb, poslovnih prostorov in pisarn z uporabo energije, ki nastaja pri sežiganju odpadkov.
At the hearing before the Court, it was stated that, at present, that heating system serves approximately 250 000 homes, numerous offices and industrial plants and, in practice, all public buildings.
Na obravnavi pred Sodi�čem je bilo poudarjeno, da ta sistem ogrevanja trenutno oskrbuje približno 250.000 stanovanj, �tevilne pisarne in industrijske obrate ter praktično vse javne zgradbe.
To provide heating for an urban area by means of an environmentally-friendly process constitutes an aim which is undeniably in the general interest.
Zagotavljanje ogrevanja za mestno območje na način, ki varuje okolje, predstavlja cilj, ki nedvomno sodi v splo�ni interes.
It cannot, therefore, be disputed that Fernwärme Wien was established specifically to meet needs in the general interest.
Zato ni sporno, da je bila družba Fernwärme Wien ustanovljena za zadovoljevanje potreb splo�nega interesa.
In that regard, it is immaterial that such needs are also met or can be met by private undertakings.
Pomembno je, da gre za potrebe, pri katerih se države ali lokalne skupnosti zaradi splo�nega interesa načeloma odločijo, da jih bodo zadovoljevale same, ali da bodo v zvezi z njimi obdržale odločilen vpliv (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 10. novembra 1998 v zadevi BFI Holding, C-360/96, Recueil, str.
It is important that they should be needs which, for reasons in the general interest, the State or a regional authority generally chooses to meet itself or over which it wishes to retain a decisive influence (see, to that effect, Case C-360/96 BFI Holding [1998] ECR I-6821, paragraphs 44, 47, 51 and 53, and Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 Agorà and Excelsior [2001] ECR I-3605, paragraphs 37, 38 and 41).
I-6821, točke 44, 47, 51 in 53, ter z dne 10. maja 2001 v zdruŽenih zadevah Agorà in Excelsior, C-223/99 in C-260/99, Recueil, str. I-3605, točke 37, 38 in 41).
Secondly, in order to ascertain whether the needs met by the entity in question in the main proceedings have a character other than industrial or commercial, account must be taken of all the relevant law and facts such as the circumstances prevailing at the time when the body concerned was established and the conditions under which it exercises its activity.
Drugič, da bi preverili, ali potrebe, ki jih zadovoljuje zadevni naročnik v postopku v glavni stvari, nimajo industrijske ali tržne narave, je treba upo�tevati vse upo�tevne pravne in dejanske elemente, kot so okoli�čine, v katerih je bila zadevna oseba ustanovljena, in razmere, v katerih opravlja svojo dejavnost.
In that regard, it is important to check, inter alia, whether the body in question carries on its activities in a situation of competition (Case C-18/01 Korhonen [2003] ECR I-5321, paragraphs 48 and 49).
V zvezi s tem je treba zlasti preveriti, ali zadevna oseba opravlja svojo dejavnost v pogojih konkurence (glej sodbo z dne 22. maja 2003 v zadevi Korhonen in drugi, C-18/01, Recueil, str. I-5321, točki 48 in 49, ter navedena sodna praksa).
As stated in paragraph 39 of the present judgment, Fernwärme Wien was established specifically for the purpose of supplying district heating in the City of Vienna.
Kot je bilo izpostavljeno v točki 39 te sodbe, je bila družba Fernwärme Wien ustanovljena s posebnim namenom zagotavljanja ogrevanja na območju mesta Dunaj. Ni
AIGNER common ground that the pursuit of profit did not underlie its establishment.
AIGNER sporno, da ustvarjanje dobička ni bilo povod za ustanovitev tega podjetja.
While it is not impossible that those activities may generate profits distributed in the form of dividends to shareholders of the entity, the making of such profits can never constitute its principal aim (see, to that effect, Korhonen, paragraph 54).
Čeprav ni izključeno, da lahko ta dejavnost ustvari dobiček, ki se ga razdeli v obliki dividend delničarjem omenjenega podjetja, ustvarjanje tak�nega dobička ne pomeni njegovega glavnega cilja (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Korhonen in drugi, točka 54).