natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The value of the contract is framed as an impartial criterion which is useful when it comes to selecting the predominant object or activity, having regard to its primary function which is to determine whether or not contracts are covered by the Directives.
Vrednost storitev se zdi glede na temeljno funkcijo, ki jo opravlja – vključiti javno naročilo na področje uporabe direktiv ali ne – objektivno merilo, ki se ga ne sme zanemariti pri opredelitvi predmeta ali glavne storitve.
In that connection, the Court held in Teckal, 27on the basis of an a contrario interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 92/50, that a contract to a contract for the assignment of prop-
Sodi�če je v tem smislu v sodbi z dne 18. novembra 1999 v zadevi Teckal 27, ko je a contrario razlagalo člen 2 Direktive 92/50, razsodilo, da javno naročilo, katerega predmet so hkrati proizvodi čevalo pogodbo, ki je hkrati zadevala prenos
25 — In point 19 of the Opinion in the case, Advocate General Lenz stated that the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerned the award of a concession to open and operate a casino, and a concession to operate a hotel, which required an obligation to be entered into for carrying out conversion work.
25 – Generalni pravobranilec Lenz je v točki 19 sklepnih predlogov v tej zadevi menil, da to vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zadeva dodeljevanje koncesij za odprtje in poslovanje igralnice ter poslovanje hotela, kar zajema obveznost izvedbe preureditvenih del.
382, considers the problem inherent in that legal sphere by reference to Article 1323 of the Italian Civil Code which provides: ‘all contracts, even where they do not fall into the categories which are governed by specific provisions, are subject to the general provisions contained in this title’ (the second title of the section on obligations).
382, ki vpra�anje obravnava z vidika te pravne veje, navaja člen 1323 italijanskega civilnega zakonika, ki določa, da za „vse pogodbe, tudi tiste, ki ne spadajo v poseben sistem, veljajo splo�ne določbe iz tega naslova“ (naslov II knjige o obligacijskem pravu).
23 — Article 1(a) of Directives 93/36 and 93/37; Article 1(4) of Directive 93/38; Recital 10 and Article 1(2) of Directive 2004/18.
23 – Člen 1(a) direktiv 93/36 in 93/37; člen 1, točka 4, Direktive 93/38; druga uvodna izjava in člen 1(2) Direktive 2004/18.
1265, argues that the prevalence criterion is more suited to identifying the provisions applicable to the majority of mixed contracts because the criterion of ancillary obligations is often inadequate.
1265, trdi, da je merilo prevlade najprimernej�e za opredelitev ureditve, ki se uporablja v večini primerov me�anih naročil, ker merilo, ki se nana�a na dodaten značaj storitev, zelo pogosto ni zadostno.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-412/04
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-412/04 in storitve, urejajo določbe, ki se uporabljajo za proizvode, če je „vrednost“ proizvodov večja od vrednosti storitev (točka 38), kar je Sodi�če potrdilo v sodbi z dne 11. maja 2006 v zadevi Carbotermo et Consorzio Alisei 28(točki 31 in 47).
Accordingly, the action for an infringement of Community law has a wide material scope because it does not apply only to secondary law where directives provide a rich source of such proceedings.
Zato ima tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti zaradi kr�itve pravnega reda Skupnosti �iroko stvarno področje uporabe, saj ne zadeva samo kategorije sekundarnega prava, znotraj katere so direktive idealne za to vrsto postopkov.
VI — The Community principles in relation to excluded contracts
VI – Načela prava Skupnosti, uporabljajo za izključena naročila
Those considerations explain why the application does not contain any submissions concerning the infringement by the Italian legislation of specific provisions of the Directives on public contracts and focuses instead on the claim that the Italian legislation breaches the Community principles enshrined in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Tako je razumljivo, da tožeča stranka ni navedla neskladnosti italijanskih predpisov z nekaterimi določbami direktiv o javnih naročilih in se je samo osredotočila na ugotovitev kr�itev načel prava Skupnosti, ki izhajajo iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
A — The action for failure to fulfil obligations on the grounds of infringement of the Community principles
A – Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti zaradi kršitve načel prava Skupnosti
In other words, since the legal provisions governing public contracts vary depending on whether the national implementing measures define those contracts in such a way that they fall within the scope of the Directives, the Commission bases its complaint on the absence of an express provision requiring compliance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment when awarding contracts which are excluded on the grounds of their value.
Komisija, ki izhaja iz ugotovitve, da se pravna ureditev javnih naročil loči po tem, ali direktive v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo o prenosu veljajo za ta naročila, namreč opira tožbo na neobstoj izrecne določbe, ki bi zahtevala spo�tovanje načel preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja pri dodeljevanju naročil, izključenih zaradi vrednosti.
B — The principles of transparency and equal treatment in relation to excluded contracts
B – Načeli preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja, ki se uporabljata za izključena naročila
It is clear from Article 10 EC that membership of the Community entails two obligations for the Member States. One of those obligations is positive and requires the Member States to take ‘all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising’ out of the Treaty or ‘resulting from action taken by the institutions’, while the other is negative and requires Member States ‘to abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives’ pursued.
Iz člena 10 ES izhaja, da pripadnost Skupnosti vsebuje dve obveznosti za države, ki so njene članice: pozitivna obveznost je, da „sprejemajo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo“ iz Pogodbe ali „so posledica ukrepov institucij“, negativna obveznost pa je, da se vzdržijo „vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev“, ki jih zasledujejo.
Under Articles 226 EC and 227 EC, the Commission and the Member States may bring the matter before the Court where they consider that another Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations.
Člena 226 ES in 227 ES dovoljujeta Komisiji in državam članicam, da predložijo zadevo Sodi�ču, če menijo, da ena od držav ni izpolnila teh obveznosti.
In previous Opinions I have argued that the development of open competi-
V prej�njih sklepnih predlogih sem trdil, da je lahko razvoj odprte konkurence
COMMISSION v ITALY tion in the field of public contracts will be achieved if those who wish to be awarded public contracts participate on an equal footing without any unjustified discrimination whatsoever, and that it is not sufficient for the procedure to be governed by objective criteria because the principle of transparency must also apply.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI na področju javnih naročil učinkovit samo, če so kandidati za oddajo naročila enakovredni, ne da bi kateri od njih užival kakr�no koli neupravičeno prednost; v zvezi s tem ni dovolj, da postopek urejajo uravnotežena pravila, ampak mora biti zagotovljeno tudi ogla�evanje. 29
29 in Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S, 31the principle of transparency ‘implies … an obligation of transparency’ in order to ensure that it is observed (paragraph 31) and, in accordance with Teleaustria and Telefonadress, that obligation of transparency ensures, ‘for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market to be opened up to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed’ (paragraph 62).
Unitron Scandinavia in 3-S 31 to načelo vključuje „obveznost preglednosti“, ki omogoča zagotavljanje njegovega spo�tovanja (točka 31) in v skladu s prvo zgoraj navedeno sodbo zagotavlja „v korist potencialnih pobudnikov […] ustrezno stopnjo javnosti, ki koncesijo za storitve odpre konkurenci in omogoča nadzor nad tem, ali so bili postopki podelitve izvedeni nepristransko“ (točka 62).
Therefore, as the Court declared in Parking Brixen, 32a complete lack of any call for competition ‘does not comply with the requirements of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC any more than with the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency’ (paragraph 50), although, in Coname, 33 the Court pointed out that transparency does not imply an obligation to ‘hold an invitation to tender’ (paragraph 21).
Na tej podlagi, kot je Sodi�če odločilo v sodbi z dne 13. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Parking Brixen 32, popolna neizvedba razpisa „ni združljiva niti z zahtevami iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES niti z načeli enakega obravnavanja, nediskriminacije in preglednosti“ (točka 50), čeprav v skladu s sodbo z dne 21. julija 2005 v zadevi Coname 33preglednost ne nalaga „obveznosti izvedbe postopka s povabilom k oddaji ponudb“ (točka 21).
The Court has already considered the effect of the principles of transparency and equal treatment on the award of contracts which, on account of their value, are excluded from the scope of the Directives and, consequently, from that of national implementing provisions.
Sodi�če je že ob drugih priložnostih obravnavalo vpra�anje vpliva načel preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja na področju dodeljevanja javnih naročil, ki jih zaradi njihove vrednosti ne pokrivajo niti direktive in posledično niti nacionalni izvedbeni predpisi.
In Teleaustria and Telefonadress, 30the Court held that, where contracts are
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Telaustria in Telefonadress 30
Those findings, which have since been upheld, 34 are therefore based on the distinc- excluded from the scope of Directive 93/38, ‘the contracting entities concluding them are, none the less, bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination on the ground of nationality, in particular’ (paragraph 60).
Ti načeli, ki sta bili potrjeni v nadaljevanju 34, torej temeljita na razlikovanju med glede javnih naročil, izključenih iz področja uporabe Direktive 93/38, sklepalo, da morajo „naročniki, ki jih sklenejo, vseeno na splo�no spo�tovati temeljna pravila Pogodbe in posebej načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva“ (točka 60).
In accordance with the judgment tion between contracts which fall within the scope of the Directives and must be governed by the procedures laid down therein, and contracts which do not fall within the scope of those Directives and are subject only to the fundamental principles. 35
V skladu s sodbo z dne 18. novembra 1999 v zadevi javnimi naročili, ki spadajo na področje uporabe direktiv in za katere veljajo postopki, določeni v teh aktih, ter javnimi naročili, ki so izključena s področij uporabe teh direktiv in za katera veljajo samo temeljna načela 35.
34 — Inter alia, in the judgment in Case C-410/04 ANAV [2006] ECR I-3303, paragraph 18.
34 – Glej med drugim sodbo z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi ANAV (C-410/04, ZOdl., str. I-3303, točka 18).
The judgment principally addressed the question whether, in the light of its specific object, namely ‘the production and publication of printed and electronically accessible lists of telephone subscribers (telephone directories)’ (paragraph 19), the contract at issue in the proceedings fell within the scope of Directive 93/38 rather than that of Directive 92/50 (paragraphs 31 to 40).
Sodi�če se je v tej sodbi ukvarjalo predvsem z vpra�anjem vključitve zadevnega javnega naročila ob upo�tevanju njegovega posebnega predmeta – „izdelava in proizvodnja natisnjenih seznamov telefonskih naročnikov, ki se lahko uporabljajo v elektronski obliki (telefonski imeniki)“ (točka 19) – na področje uporabe Direktive 93/38, ne pa Direktive 92/50 (točke od 31 do 40).
Reference to the Directives
Sklicevanje na direktive
C — The scope of the obligation to comply with the principles of transparency and equal treatment
C – Obseg obveznosti spoštovanja preglednosti in enakosti
The Court made clear in Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau 37 that the principal objective of the Community rules in the field of public procurement is, in addition to the free movement of goods and services, the opening-up to undistorted competition in all the Member States (paragraph 44). 38
Kot je Sodi�če poudarilo v sodbi z dne 11. januarja 2005 v zadevi Stadt Halle in RPL Lochau 37, je glavni namen pravil Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil ne samo prosti pretok storitev, ampak tudi odprta in neizkrivljena konkurenca v vseh državah članicah (točka 44) 38.
Having established that contracts which are excluded from the specific provisions must be awarded in accordance with the principles of transparency and equal treatment, it is necessary to define that obligation and establish whether it must be enshrined in legislation.
Ker je obveznost zagotavljanja preglednosti in enakosti pri dodeljevanju javnih naročil, za katera ne veljajo posebni predpisi, priznana, je treba opredeliti obseg te obveznosti, tako da se preuči, ali jo je treba potrditi v zapisanem pravu.
However, an analysis of the Directives reveals the absence of a complete body of law at Community level, 39because, first, the Directives essentially govern procurement, although they also have an effect on other stages, such as performance of the contract; second, the Directives exclude certain contracts; and, finally, the Directives do not contain any general provisions with which the excluded contracts are required to comply.
Razčlenitev direktiv vseeno razkriva neobstoj popolne kodifikacije znotraj Evropske unije. 39 Te direktive namreč zade- vajo predvsem dodeljevanje naročil – čeprav vplivajo tudi na druge faze, kot je izvr�itev naročila –, izključujejo nekatera naročila in nazadnje ne vsebujejo splo�nih določb, ki bi se uporabljale za izključena naročila.
The Court did not dispel that uncertainty in Coname, despite the detailed analysis undertaken by Advocate General Stix-Hackl in the Opinion in that case.
Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Coname te negotovosti kljub podrobni analizi, ki jo je generalna pravobranilka Stix-Hackl predstavila v sklepnih predlogih, ni razjasnilo.
However, there are a number of cases pending in which the debate may be rekindled. 36
Vendar bi lahko več zadev, ki sedaj potekajo pred Sodi�čem, obudilo to razpravo. 36
The restriction of the scope of the Directives to the preparatory stages, the procedure and the methods of awarding contracts, as
Omejitev predpisov na pripravo razpisa, postopek in vrste oddaje naročil, ki je razvidna iz naslova direktiv, je utemeljena
Unlike those cases, which concern specific contracts, the present case is broader in scope and requires an examination of the Directives and of the Treaty.
V nasprotju s temi zadevami, ki se nana�ajo na določena javna naročila, je ta spor �ir�i, zaradi česar je treba upo�tevati direktive in Pogodbo.
38 — Although those rules also fulfil other objectives, such as protecting the financial interests of the contracting authority by enabling price screening. See García-Trevijano Garnica, J.A., ‘Disposiciones comunes a los contratos administrativos. En especial, el precio y su revisión’, Derecho de los contratos públicos. Estudio sistemático de la Ley 13/1995, de 18 de mayo, de contratos de las Administraciones Públicas, coordinated by Pendás, B., Praxis, Barcelona, 1995, p. 258.
38 – Čeprav te določbe izpolnjujejo druge cilje, kot je za�čita finančnih interesov uprave z nadziranjem cen; García-Trevijano Garnica, J. A., „Disposiciones comunes a los contratos administrativos. En especial, el precio y su revisión“, v Derecho de los contratos públicos. Estudio sistemático de la Ley 13/1995, de 18 de mayo, de contratos de las Administraciones Públicas, uredil Pendás, B., izd. Praxis, Barcelona, 1995, str. 258.
36 — Case C-507/03 Commission v Ireland and Case C-532/03 Commission v Ireland, which concern the complaint that service contracts were awarded without publication of a prior notice. Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered the Opinions in both cases on 14 September 2006.
36 – Zadevi Komisija proti Irski (C-507/03) in Komisija proti Irski (C-532/03), v katerih se tej državi članici očita dodelitev naročil storitev brez vsakr�ne objave predhodnega obvestila o razpisu; generalna pravobranilka Stix-Hackl je sklepne predloge v teh dveh zadevah predstavila 14. septembra 2006.
Also, Case C-195/04 Commission v Finland, in which the hearing was held on 8 June and the infringement relates to the award of a contract for institutional kitchen equipment.
Glej tudi zadevo Komisija proti Finski (C-195/04), v kateri je obravnava potekala 8. junija 2007 in ki zadeva dodelitev naročila kuhinjske opreme za menze.
79, that, nevertheless, the Directives are creating ‘a move towards a common system of procurement’.
79, vseeno ugotavlja, da direktive „odpirajo pot skupnemu sistemu javnih naročil“.
COMMISSION v ITALY indicated by their titles, is justified by the fact that those are the stages which affect the free movement of goods, freedom of establishment, freedom to provide services, and the principles derived from those freedoms.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI s tem, da gre za faze, ki vplivajo na prosti pretok blaga, svobodo ustanavljanja, svobodo opravljanja storitev in načela, ki izhajajo iz teh svobo�čin.
It is therefore important to recall that Article 249 EC provides that ‘[a] directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods’, from which it follows that, while transposition must extend to the whole of a directive, it nevertheless extends to the directive alone.
Tako je treba spomniti, da je v skladu s členom 249 ES „direktiva […] za vsako državo članico, na katero je naslovljena, zavezujoča glede cilja, ki ga je treba doseči, vendar prepu�ča nacionalnim organom izbiro oblike in metod“, kar pomeni, da mora prenos zajemati celotno direktivo in vendar samo direktivo.
It is also possible to explain the exclusion of certain contracts on the grounds that they have a sensitive object, such as contracts which are secret or are subject to stringent security measures; that they fall within the scope of other directives, such as telecommunications contracts; or that they have a modest value.
Prav tako lahko razumemo izključitev nekaterih naročil zaradi občutljivega predmeta – kot so tajna naročila ali naročila, ki zahtevajo posebne varnostne ukrepe –, ker jih pokrivajo druge direktive, na primer na področju telekomunikacij, ali zaradi vrednosti – ker je ta premajhna.
Accordingly, as Community law currently stands, neither the objective, the subject-matter, nor the effectiveness of the Directives require that legislation adopted by the Member States in relation to contracts excluded from the scope of the Directives must refer expressly to the principles on which the latter are founded.
Zato v sedanjem stanju prava Skupnosti niti cilj, niti vsebina, niti polni učinek direktiv o javnih naročilih ne zahtevajo, da so načela, po katerih se zgledujejo, izrecno navedena v pravnih redih držav članic pri javnih naročilih, ki so izključena s področja uporabe navedenih direktiv.
However, it is more difficult to understand why none of the Community legislation on public procurement contains stipulations concerning equal opportunities, the prohibition of discrimination, transparency and advertising, subject to the necessary exclusions, 40because such stipulations would benefit the aims of the Community without creating insuperable difficulties.
Težje se zdi upravičiti neobstoj predpisov, ki bi bili skupni za vsa javna naročila in bi vsebovali navedbe o enakih možnostih, prepovedi diskriminacije, preglednosti in ogla�evanju ter predvidevali ustrezne izjeme 40, saj bi bile take navedbe v smislu ciljev Skupnosti, ne da bi ustvarjale nepremostljive ovire.
In Commission v Italy, 41the Court found that Articles 43 EC and 49 EC embody specific instances of the principle of equal treatment (paragraph 8), which, as the Court
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 5. decembra 1989 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji 41odlo- čilo, da sta člena 43 ES in 49 ES poseben izraz načela enakega obravnavanja (točka 8), ki
40 — Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 requires contracting authorities to ‘treat economic operators equally and non-discriminatorily’ and to act ‘in a transparent way’, while Articles 4 to 6 set out rules governing all public contracts and relating to ‘economic operators’, ‘conditions relating to agreements concluded within the World Trade Organisation’, and ‘confidentiality’.
40 – V členu 2 Direktive 2004/18 je določeno, da morajo naročniki „obravnavati gospodarske subjekte enakopravno in nediskriminacijsko ter delovati transparentno“.
However, Article 7 provides that those articles, like the other provisions of the Directive, apply only to public contracts ‘which are not excluded’.
V členih od 4 do 6 so navedena nekatera pravila, ki veljajo za vsa javna naročila in zadevajo „gospodarsk[e] subjekt[e]“, „pogoj[e] v zvezi s sporazumi, sklenjenimi v okviru Svetovne trgovinske organizacije“, in „zaupnost“; vendar se v skladu s členom 7 te določbe in tudi drugih členov Direktive nana�ajo samo na naročila, „ki niso izključena“.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-412/04 held in Commission v Belgium, 42 means that all tenderers must have equality of opportunity when they formulate their tenders, irrespective of their nationality (paragraphs 33 and 54).
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-412/04 v skladu s sodbo z dne 25. aprila 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji 42pomeni, da morajo vsi ponudniki pri pripravi pobud imeti enake možnosti ne glede na državljanstvo (točki 33 in 54).
service covering the maintenance, operation and monitoring of the methane gas network, and held that regard must be had to the principles referred to.
vidikih, ko je preučilo neposredno dodelitev s strani italijanske lokalne skupnosti naročila za storitve vzdrževanja, upravljanja in nadziranja naprav za distribucijo metana.
Since the contract concerned did not fall within the scope of any of the Directives, the Court applied primary law (paragraph 16), and pointed out that infringement of the principle of transparency amounted to indirect discrimination contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC (paragraphs 17 to 19), which was justified by ‘special circumstances, such as a very modest economic interest at stake’, so that ‘it could reasonably be maintained that an undertaking located’ in another Member State ‘would have no interest in the concession at issue and that the effects on the fundamental freedoms concerned should therefore be regarded as too uncertain and indirect to warrant the conclusion that they may have been infringed’ (paragraph 20).
Ker gre za naročilo, ki je izključeno s področja uporabe direktiv, se je sklicevalo na primarno pravo (točka 16) in ugotovilo, da bi nespo�tovanje preglednosti povzročilo posredno diskriminacijo, ki je v nasprotju s členo- ma 43 ES in 49 ES (točke od 17 do 19) ter bi jo lahko upravičile „posebne okoli�čine, kot je zelo zmanj�an gospodarski interes“, zaradi katerih bi lahko razumno zatrdili, da podjetij iz drugih držav članic ne bi zanimala obravnavana koncesija in da „bi bilo učinke na zadevne temeljne svobo�čine zato treba �teti kot premalo gotove in zelo posredne, da bi lahko sklepali o njihovi morebitni kr�itvi“ (točka 20).
The publication of a call for tenders is the key element from the point of view of the principles laid down in the Treaty, which, however, does not contain any guidance which might indicate the manner in which notices must be published.
Objavljanje razpisov za naročila je torej ključni element pri uporabi načel Pogodbe, ki vseeno ne vsebuje nobene navedbe o načinu sestavljanja obvestil o razpisu.
The Court has not intervened in this matter, except to offer minimal guidance.
V zvezi s tem je sodna praksa pustila proste roke, čeprav je naložila nekatera minimalna pravila.