natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
…’ therefore appropriate to consolidate that directive and this was effected by Directive 93/37, which was also intended to safeguard freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (second recital).
rati, kar je bilo storjeno z Direktivo 93/37, katere namen je bil prav tako za�čita svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev (druga uvodna izjava).
Applicable to contracts with a value of not less than ECU 5 000 000 (Article 6(1)) and retaining the previous award criteria (Article 30(1)), Directive 93/37 reproduced, with minor amendments, the wording of the former Article 29(5) in Article 30(4):
Omenjena Direktiva 93/37, ki se je uporabljala za pogodbe v vrednosti nad 5 milijonov ekujev (člen 6(1)) in ki je ostala skladna s predhodno določenim merilom oddaje (člen 30(1)), je vsebino nekdanjega člena 29(5), z manj�imi spremembami, povzela v členu 30(4):
‘If, for a given contract, tenders appear to be abnormally low in relation to the works, the contracting authority shall, before it may reject those tenders, request, in writing, details of the constituent elements of the tender which it considers relevant and shall verify those constituent elements taking account of the explanations received.
„Če se za dano naročilo zdijo ponudbe neobičajno nizke glede na gradnje, naročnik pisno zahteva, preden zavrne tak�ne ponudbe, podrobnosti o sestavnih elementih ponudbe, ki so po njegovem mnenju pomembni, in jih preveri ob upo�tevanju prejetih pojasnil.
Directive 2004/18, which the Member States were required to transpose by 31 January 2006 (Article 80(1)), repealed Directive 93/37 with effect from 31 March 2004 (Articles 82 and 83).
Z Direktivo 2004/18, ki so jo morale države članice v svoje zakonodaje prenesti pred 31. januarjem 2006 (člen 80(1)), je bila 31. marca 2004 razveljavljena Direktiva 97/37 (člena 82 in 83).
When awarding works contracts whose value is at least EUR 5 278 000 (Article 7(c)), 9 a contracting authority has the right to exclude abnormally low tenders following an inter partes verification procedure (Article 55(1) and (2)).
Kar zadeva oddajo javnih naročil za gradnjo, katerih vrednost zna�a najmanj 5.278.000 EUR (člen 7(c)), 9lahko naročniki neobičajno nizke ponudbe zavrnejo po uporabi kontradiktornega postopka preverjanja (člen 55(1) in (2)).
The contracting authority may take into consideration explanations which are justified on objective grounds including the economy of the construction method, or the technical solution chosen, or the exceptionally favourable conditions available to the tenderer for the execution of the work, or the originality of the work proposed by the tenderer.
Naročnik lahko upo�teva pojasnila, ki so utemeljena z objektivnimi razlogi, vključno z ekonomičnostjo konstrukcijske metode, ali zaradi izbrane tehnične re�itve, ali zaradi izjemno ugodnih pogojev, ki so na voljo gradbeniku za izvedbo gradnje, ali pa zaradi izvirnosti storitve, ki jo predlaga ponudnik.
Article 30(4) of Directive 97/37 was transposed into Italian law by Article 21(1)(a) of Law No 109/94 of 11 February 1994, the
Člen 30(4) Direktive 97/37 je bil v italijansko nacionalno pravo prenesen s
9 — According to the wording in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2083/2005 of 19 December 2005 (OJ 2005 L 333, p. 28).
8 – Ena od sprememb je zadevala člen 29(5), ki je bil spremenjen z Direktivo 89/440/EGS z dne 18. julija 1989 (UL L 210, str. 1).
8 — One of those amendments affected Article 29(5), which was given new wording by Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 (OJ 1989 L 210, p. 1).
9 – V skladu z besedilom Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 2083/2005 z dne 19. decembra 2005 (UL L 333, str. 28).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-147/06 AND C-148/06 framework law on public works, 10 appended to the original text by Article 7 of Law No 216/95 of 2 June 1995.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-147/06 IN C-148/06 členom 21(1a) zakona �t. 109/1994 z dne 11. februarja 1994, okvirnega zakona za področje javnih gradenj, 10ki je bil izvirni različici tega zakona dodan s členom 7 zakona �t.
11In accordance with that provision: the exceptionally favourable conditions available to the tenderer in question, excluding, in any event, explanations relating to those elements for which minimum values have been set by laws, regulations or administrative provisions, or for which values may be ascertained from official data.
216/1995 z dne 2. junija 1995. 11 kakr�na koli pojasnila, ki se nana�ajo na vse elemente, katerih najnižje vrednosti so določene z zakoni in drugimi predpisi ali katerih vrednosti je mogoče izpeljati iz uradnih podatkov.
Tenders must be accompanied, when submitted, by explanations concerning the most significant price components, indicated in the tender notice or in the letter of invitation, the total amount of which must not be less than 75% of the basic value of the bid.
Ponudbam morajo biti že ob predložitvi priložena dokazila, ki se nana�ajo na najpomembnej�e cenovne postavke, navedene v obvestilu o razpisu ali pisnem povabilu k sodelovanju, na podlagi katerih je mogoče priti do zneska v vrednosti najmanj 75 % osnovne tržne vrednosti.
‘In cases of awards of contracts for works to the value of ECU 5 000 000 or above on the basis of the lowest-bid criterion mentioned in paragraph 1, the authority concerned must assess the irregular nature of the tenders referred to in Article 30 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 in relation to all tenders undercutting the indicative price to an extent equal to or greater than the arithmetical mean of the percentage discounts of all the tenders admitted, excluding 10%, rounded up to the nearest digit, of those offering the highest and lowest discounts respectively, increased by the arithmetical mean of the difference in the percentage discounts which are in excess of the said mean.
„Ob naročilu gradenj v vrednosti 5 milijonov ekujev ali več, ob uporabi merila najnižje cene v smislu odstavka 1, zadevni upravni organ presodi nenavadnost – v smislu člena 30 Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 – vsake ponudbe, pri kateri je popust enak ali vi�ji od aritmetične sredine odstotnih vrednosti popusta vseh dopustnih ponudb (to je brez 10 %, zaokroženo navzgor, ponudb z vi�jim oziroma nižjim popustom), povečane za aritmetično sredino odstotkov popusta, ki presegajo zgoraj navedeno sredino.
For that purpose, the public administration may take account, within 60 days from the submission of tenders, only of explanations based on the economy of the construction method, the technical solutions chosen, or
Javna uprava zato v roku �estdesetih dni od dneva predložitve ponudb upo�teva samo pojasnila, zasnovana na gospodarnosti postopka vzpostavitve ali na prilagojenih tehničnih re�itvah oziroma na posebej ugodnih pogojih, ki jih uživa ponudnik, pri čemer so v vsakem primeru izključena
For public works contracts with a value below the Community threshold only, the authority concerned shall automatically exclude tenders with a percentage discount equal to or greater than the percentage referred to in the first subparagraph.
Kar zadeva samo javna naročila za gradnje v znesku, nižjem od praga Skupnosti, zadevni upravni organ uporabi samodejno izključitev iz postopka za ponudbe, katerih odstotni delež popusta je enak ali vi�ji od deleža, določenega v prvem pododstavku tega odstavka.
The automatic exclusion procedure shall not apply if the number of valid tenders is lower than five.’ 12
Postopek samodejne izključitve se ne uporablja, ko je �tevilo veljavnih ponudb manj�e od pet.“ 12
Legislative Decree No 163 of 12 April 2006 13transposes Directive 2004/18 into national law.
Direktiva 2004/18 je bila v nacionalni pravni red prenesena z zakonodajno odredbo �t. 163 z dne 12. aprila 2006.
The final subparagraph of Article 21(1)(a) of Law No 109/94 has been removed from the provisions governing abnormally low tenders (Articles 86 to 88).
13Kar zadeva določbe, ki se nana�ajo na neobičajno nizke ponudbe (členi od 86 do 88), je bil črtan zadnji pododstavek člena 21(1a) zakona �t. 109/94.
value of which did not exceed the Community threshold.
zneski niso presegali zadevnega praga.
The tender notices stipulated the criterion of the lowest price, subject to the verification of anomalous tenders, and stated that there would be no automatic rejection of abnormally low tenders, in accordance with the decision of 28 January 2003.
Obvestili o razpisu sta potrjevali merilo največjega popusta in predvidevali preverjanje ponudb z nepravilnostmi, pri čemer naj v skladu s sporazumom z dne 28. januarja 2003 ne bi samodejno izključili neobičajno nizkih ponudb.
The tenders submitted by the two undertakings emerged as the first of the ‘regular’ tenders but, before making a decision, the municipal authorities declared that the tenders which appeared to be anomalous were in fact valid and awarded the contracts to other tenderers.
Njuni ponudbi sta bili na prvem mestu med „običajnimi“, vendar je mestni organ pred sprejetjem odločitve ugotovil, da so bile resne tudi ponudbe, za katere se je zdelo, da so neobičajne, in zato naročili oddal drugima ponudnikoma.
III — The main proceedings
III – Spora o glavni stvari
By decision of 28 January 2003, Turin Municipal Council (Comune di Torino) resolved to deprive of all effectiveness pro futuro Article 21(1)(a) of Law No 109/94 in order to prevent the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders so that, when awarding municipal contracts, including those below the Community threshold, such tenders would be verified in accordance with the inter partes procedure laid down in Directive 93/37.
S sporazumom z dne 28. januarja 2003 se je mestna občina Torino odločila, da člen 21(1a) zakona �t. 109/94 ne bo imel več učinka pro futuro, s čimer se je želela izogniti samodejnim izključitvam neobičajno nizkih ponudb, tako da naj bi se v okviru oddaje mestnih naročil, vključno s tistimi, ki ne dosegajo praga Skupnosti, te ponudbe preverile v skladu s kontradiktornim postopkom iz Direktive 93/37.
Both undertakings brought actions before the Tribunale amministrativo regionale di Piemonte (Regional Administrative Court, Piedmont), arguing that Article 21(1)(a) of Law No 109/94 requires the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders and prohibits public sector entities from hearing explanations from the tenderers concerned and from examining such tenders before rejecting them.
Zadevni družbi sta zato vložili tožbo pri Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Piemonte, v kateri sta trdili, da člen 21(1a) zakona �t. 109/94 samodejno izključuje neobičajno nizke ponudbe in tako naročnikom preprečuje, da bi se pred zavrnitvijo s takimi ponudniki posvetovali in preučili njihove ponudbe.
The Tribunale amministrativo regionale di Piemonte did not accept that reasoning and dismissed the actions on the grounds that, in its opinion, Article 21(1)(a) authorises the automatic exclusion of abnormally low tenders but does not make it mandatory, from which it follows that there is nothing to preclude a contracting authority from hearing explanations from tenderers and examining their tenders.
Sodni organ je menil, da ta utemeljitev ni dopustna, in je sodbi zavrnil, saj je po njegovem mnenju ta določba dovoljevala samodejno izključitev neobičajno nizkih ponudb, vendar tega ni nalagala kot obvezo, zato pogodbenemu upravnemu organu ni nič preprečevalo tem ponudnikom dati možnost obrazložitve in preučiti njihove ponudbe.
The Italian undertakings SECAP SpA (Case C-147/06) and Santorso Soc.
Italijanski družbi SECAP SpA (zadeva C-147/06) in Santorso Soc.
Coop. arl (Case C-148/06) participated in two procurement procedures announced by the Council for the execution of certain works, 14the
Coop. arl (zadeva C-148/06) sta sodelovali na dveh javnih razpisih, ki ju je objavila občina in ki sta zadevala izvedbo določenih gradenj, 14 pri katerih
14 — The conversion of a former palace into a youth hostel (EUR 4 699 999) and the environmental upgrading of Corso Francia, between Piazza Statuto and Piazza Bernini (EUR 5 172 579), respectively.
14 – Preureditev nekdanje palače v mladinski hotel (4.699.999 EUR) oziroma okoljska prekvalifikacija ulice Corso Francia med trgoma Piazza Statuto in Piazza Bernini (5.172.579 EUR).
The Consiglio di Stato, which is seised of the appeals lodged by the appellants, accepts their arguments and rejects the interpretation of the regional court. However, the Consiglio di Stato is also mindful of the requirements of Community law, which have
Consiglio di Stato, pri katerem sta tožeči stranki vložili pritožbo, je njuno trditev podprlo in razveljavilo razlago regijskega sodi�ča, vendar kljub temu ni bilo brezbrižno
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-147/06 AND C-148/06 been invoked by Turin Municipal Council, and has therefore referred the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC: characteristics of a fundamental principle of Community law, nevertheless an implied consequence of or a “principle deriving from” the principle of competition, considered in conjunction with the principles of administrative transparency and nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality and is it therefore, as such, directly binding, taking precedence over possibly incompatible national provisions adopted by the Member States to regulate public works contracts to which Community law is not directly applicable?’
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-147/06 IN C-148/06 do zahtev, ki jih postavlja pravo Skupnosti, na katere se je sklicevala mestna občina Torino, zato je Sodi�ču na podlagi člena 234 ES postavilo ti vpra�anji: po njegovem mnenju pomembni, in jih preveri ob upo�tevanju prejetih pojasnil – pomeni implicitno posledico načela konkurence ali ‚izvedeno načelo‘ iz tega načela, upo�tevanega v povezavi z načeli preglednosti uprave in prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, in ali zato ta določba velja neposredno in prednostno pred morebitnimi neskladnimi nacionalnimi predpisi, ki jih je sprejela država za ureditev oddaje javnih naročil storitev, za katere pravo Skupnosti ne velja neposredno?“
IV — The procedure before the Court of Justice
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem
By order of 10 May 2006, the President of the Court joined the two proceedings, since they share the same subject-matter.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 10. maja 2006 obe zadevi zaradi njune objektivne povezanosti združil.
The appellant undertakings in the main proceedings, Turin Municipal Council, the Austrian, French, German, Italian, Lithuanian, Netherlands and Slovak Governments and the Commission have submitted written observations which are varied in approach but may be grouped into two categories.
Tožeči podjetji v postopkih v glavni stvari, mestna občina Torino, nem�ka, avstrijska, francoska, italijanska, litovska, nizozemska in slova�ka vlada ter Komisija so predložili pisna stali�ča, ki se med seboj razlikujejo, vendar jih je vseeno mogoče združiti
SECAP AND SANTORSO
SECAP IN SANTORSO v dve kategoriji: prva skupina vključuje Litvo, Slova�ko 15in Komisijo, ki so naklonjene
It is therefore appropriate to examine the nature of that rule in order to determine whether it is part of primary Community law and thus transcends Directive 93/37.
Zato je treba preučiti značaj tega pravila ter na podlagi tega določiti, ali spada v okvir primarnega prava Skupnosti in zato presega Direktivo 93/37.
The first category supports the position of Turin Municipal Council and includes the observations of Lithuania, Slovakia 15and the Commission, while the second category comprises the observations of all the other participants in these proceedings, which propose that the questions referred should be answered in the negative.
trditvi, ki jo zagovarja mestna občina Torino, druga pa vse druge udeležence v tej zadevi, ki so se izrekli v prid nikalnemu odgovoru na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje.
At the hearing on 25 October 2007, oral argument was presented by the representatives of Santorso Soc. coop. arl, Turin Municipal Council, the German, Italian and Lithuanian Governments and the Commission.
Predstavniki družbe Santorso Soc. Coop. arl, občine Torino, nem�ke, italijanske in litovske vlade ter Komisije so se 25. oktobra 2007 udeležili obravnave, na kateri so svoja stali�ča predstavili �e ustno.
V — Analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
V – Analiza odločanje
The analysis may be based on solid foundations, firmly anchored in caselaw which I have already examined. 16Public procurement procedures which, for different reasons (quantitative or conceptual), fall outside the scope of the relevant directives still come within the sphere of the Community legal system, so that its fundamental principles, in particular, the fundamental freedoms of movement, become insurmountable barriers.
Analiza je zasnovana na trdnih temeljih, ki so čvrsto zasidrani v sodni praksi in sem jih že preučil 16 – postopki oddaje javnih naročil, ki jih iz različnih razlogov (količinskih ali konceptualnih) direktive na tem področju ne pokrivajo, se ne morejo izogniti vladavini prava Evropske unije, zato so njegova temeljna načela, zlasti osnovne kategorije svobode gibanja, postavljena kot nepremostljive ovire.
That view, which is encapsulated in recital 2 in the preamble to Directive 2004/18, 17is well established in the
Ta ideja, ki je izražena v drugi uvodni izjavi Direktive 2004/18, 17ima v letopisih
In point of fact, the two questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato may be reduced to a single question, aimed at establishing whether Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37, which requires abnormally low tenders to undergo an inter partes procedure before a decision whether to reject them is taken, applies to contracts falling outside the scope of the directive. In other words, the referring court asks whether, in the case of such contracts, Article 30(4) precludes Member States from providing for the automatic exclusion of that type of tender.
Vpra�anji, ki ju je postavilo Consiglio di Stato, je mogoče združiti v eno samo vpra�anje, in sicer ali člen 30(4) Direktive 93/37, ki določa, da je treba pred morebitno odločitvijo o izključitvi neobičajno nizkih ponudb opraviti postopek kontradiktorne razprave, ureja tudi naročila, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe te direktive; z drugimi besedami, ali ta določba državam članicam preprečuje, da za taka naročila samodejno izključijo take ponudbe?
16 — Opinion in Case C-412/04 Commission v Italy, pending before the Court, points 44 to 47.
16 – Sklepni predlogi, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2006 v �e nerazsojeni zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-412/04, točke od 44 do 47).
17 — ‘The award of contracts concluded in the Member States on behalf of the State, regional or local authorities and other bodies governed by public law entities, is subject to the respect of the principles of the Treaty and in particular to the principle of freedom of movement of goods, the principle of freedom of establishment and the principle of freedom to provide services and to the principles deriving therefrom, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of nondiscrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency …’
15 – Mnenje slova�ke vlade se nekoliko razlikuje od stali�č Litve in mestne občine Torino, saj zagovarja zavrnitev prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, odklanja pa ločevanje pravila iz člena 30(4) Direktive 93/37 od načel, ki jih postavlja Pogodba, s čimer se pridružuje odločitvi mestne občine.
15 — Albeit with certain nuances vis-à-vis the stance of Lithuania and Turin Municipal Council in that, when contending that the first question should receive a negative reply, the Slovak Government refuses to dissociate the rule in Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 from the principles laid down in the Treaty, thereby concurring with the decision of the Municipal Council.
17 – „Za oddajo naročil, sklenjenih v državah članicah v imenu države, regionalnih ali lokalnih in drugih oseb javnega prava, veljajo načela iz Pogodbe in zlasti načelo prostega pretoka blaga, načelo svobode ustanavljanja in načelo svobode opravljanja storitev ter načela, ki iz teh izhajajo, kot so načelo enakopravnosti, načelo nediskriminacije, načelo vzajemnega priznavanja, načelo sorazmernosti in načelo transparentnosti. […]“
18In the judgment in Telaustria and Telefonadress, 19the Court held that contracting entities are bound to comply with the rules of the Treaty when awarding contracts which are excluded from the scope of the sectoral directives (paragraph 60). 20That caselaw was reiterated in the judgment in HI (paragraph 47) 21 and strict special procedures laid down in those directives are not appropriate in the case of public contracts of small value does not mean that those contracts are not subject to Community law, since they must also comply with the Treaty (paragraphs 19 to 21) 24if they are of interest to operators established in other Member States.
Sodi�ča precej dolgo zgodovino. 18V sodbi z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Telaustria in Telefonadress 19je Sodi�če razsodilo, da jeno, da samo dejstvo, da posebni in strogi postopki, ki jih določajo te direktive, niso primerni, ko gre za javna naročila majhne vrednosti, �e ne pomeni, da so ta naročila izključena s področja uporabe prava Skupnosti, saj morajo, če so lahko zanimiva za gospodarske subjekte s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, 24prav tako spo�tovati Pogodbo (točke od 19 do 21).
25 In Case C-264/03 Commission v France, 26the Court took the same view (paragraph 33).
25 Prav tako je bila v tem smislu izrečena sodba z dne 20. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji 26 (točka 33).
followed more recently, quite naturally and without reference to the previous cases, in the Coname judgment. 22
morajo pogodbene stranke pri oddaji naročil, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe sektorskih direktiv, spo�tovati pravila iz Pogodbe (točka 60); 20ta sodna praksa je bila potrjena v sodbi z dne 18. junija 2002 v zadevi HI (točka 47) 21in pred kratkim ponovno uporabljena, tokrat povsem naravno, ne da bi se Sodi�če pri tem sklicevalo na predhodne zadeve, v sodbi z dne 21. julija 2005 v zadevi Coname. 22
Next, in the order in Vestergaard, 23the Court pointed out that the mere fact that the
Dalje je bilo v sklepu z dne 3. decembra 2001 v zadevi Vestergaard 23poudar-
18 — And in those of the Commission, specifically in the Commission interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the public procurement directives (OJ 2006 C 179, p.
18 – Kakor tudi v letopisih Komisije; glej „Razlagalno sporočilo Komisije o zakonodaji Skupnosti, ki velja za oddajo javnih naročil, ki niso zajeta ali so samo delno zajeta v direktivah o javnih naročilih“ (UL 2006, C 179, str.
2, in particular pp. 5 and 6).
2; zlasti strani 5 in 6).
19 — Case C-324/98 [2000] ECR I-10745.
19 – Zadeva C-324/98, Recueil, str. I-10745.
20 — In that case, Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p.
20 – V tej zadevi Direktive Sveta 93/38/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov naročanja naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem, transportnem in telekomunikacijskem sektorju (UL L 199, str.
84), which was replaced by Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).
84), ki jo je nadomestila Direktiva 2004/17/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 (UL L 134, str. 1).
21 — Case C-92/00 [2002] ECR I-5553.
21 – Zadeva C-92/00, Recueil, str. I-5553.