natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, when transposing Community law, there cannot be a requirement to refer specifically to the provisions of the Treaty.
Zato naj bi v fazi prenosa ureditve Skupnosti ne bilo potrebno posebno sklicevanje na določbe Pogodbe.
It adds that a ministerial circular drew the attention of contracting authorities to the requirement to comply with the general principles of nondiscrimination, equal
Dodaja tudi, da je ministrska okrožnica pritegnila pozornost naročnikov v zvezi z zahtevo o spo�tovanju splo�nih načel prepovedi diskriminacije, enakega obravna-
COMMISSION v ITALY treatment and transparency and that, in any event, direct award of the contracts concerned to trusted persons may take place only after their professional experience and professional capacity have been checked.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI vanja in preglednosti in da v vsakem primeru do neposredne oddaje zadevnih naročil zaupanja vrednim osebam ne bi moglo priti pred ugotovitvijo njihovih izku�enj in njihovih poklicnih sposobnosti.
It is settled case-law, as stated in paragraph 66 of this judgment, that public service contracts falling outside the scope of Directive 92/50 which have been shown to be of certain crossborder interest remain subject to the fundamental freedoms laid down by the Treaty in the circumstances specified in the caselaw set out in that paragraph.
Ni sporno, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 66 te sodbe, da za javna naročila storitev, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive 92/50 in za katere je ugotovljeno, da predstavljajo določen čezmejni interes, v okoli�činah, ki jih je pojasnila sodna praksa v navedeni točki, ostanejo v veljavi temeljne svobo�čine, določene s Pogodbo.
Since the obligations arising from primary law that relate to equal treatment and transparency are therefore automatically applicable to those contracts — which are nevertheless excluded from the scope of Directive 92/50 on account of their value — in so far as the conditions laid down by that caselaw are satisfied, there is no requirement for the national legislation transposing the directive to recall them expressly.
Če se obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz primarnega prava, v zvezi z enakostjo obravnavanja in preglednostjo v celoti uporabljajo tudi za ta naročila – čeprav so izključena s področja uporabe navedene direktive glede na njihovo vrednost – in če so izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni s to sodno prakso, ni mogoče zahtevati, da se jih v nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prenese navedeno direktivo, izrecno navede.
Therefore, the third complaint must be dismissed.
Zato je treba tretji očitek zavrniti.
The fourth and fifth complaints
Četrti in peti očitek
The fourth complaint concerns the provisions of Article 27(2) of Law No 109/1994, according to which, if the contracting authorities are unable to carry out the supervision of works which is as a rule the responsibility of their technical departments, those activities are entrusted to the project designer within the meaning of Article 17(4) thereof.
Četrti očitek se nana�a na določbe člena 27(2) zakona �t. 109/1994, v skladu s katerimi se, ko naročniki ne morejo opravljati nalog vodenja gradnje, za katere so načeloma zadolženi njihovi tehnični oddelki, te naloge zaupajo projektantu, zadolženemu za projekt v smislu člena 17(4) navedenega zakona.
It is clear from a combined reading of those provisions that although those tasks are, as a rule, the responsibility of the technical departments of the contracting authorities, where a lack of staff has been established and certified by the person responsible for the procedure the authority may award the tasks to third parties featured on lists drawn up for that purpose by the Ministry of Public Works, without using the procedures relating to the opening of contracts up to competition.
Iz teh določb izhaja, da je izvedba teh nalog načeloma dolžnost tehničnih oddelkov naročnikov, če pa vodja postopka ugotovi in potrdi pomanjkanje osebja, lahko uprava dodeli navedene naloge tretjim, navedenim na seznamih, ki jih v ta namen sestavi ministrstvo za javna dela, ne da bi uporabili postopke javnega razpisa.
In the Commission’s view, since Articles 27(2) and 28(4) of Law No 109/1994 allow the public service contracts concerned to be directly awarded without competition, they infringe, depending on the value of those contracts, either Directives 92/50 and 93/38 or Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Komisija meni, da določbe členov 27(2) in 28(4) zakona �t. 109/1994 s tem, da omogočajo neposredno oddajo, brez javnega razpisa, zadevnih javnih naročil storitev, glede na vrednost navedenih naročil kr�ijo tako direktivi 92/50 in 93/38 kot člena 43 ES in 49 ES.
It must be noted as a preliminary point that, in accordance with the caselaw set out in paragraph 42 of this judgment, only the national legislation in force on 15 December 2003 may be taken into account in assessing the complaints made by the Commission.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da je treba v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 42 te sodbe, v okviru presoje očitkov Komisije upo�tevati le nacionalno ureditev, ki je veljala 15. decembra 2003.
As the Advocate General has noted, in point 101 of his Opinion, supervision and the inspection of works are included in Category No 12 of both Annex I A to Directive 92/50 and Annex XVI A to Directive 93/38.
Vendar, kot je v točki 101 sklepnih predlogov ugotovil generalni pravobranilec, naloge preverjanj in naloge nadziranja gradenj spadajo v razred 12 tako priloge I A k Direktivi 92/50 kot priloge XVI A k Direktivi 93/38.
It is clear, first, from Article 8 of Directive 92/50 that contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex I A are to be awarded in particular in accordance with
Glede tega, prvič, iz člena 8 Direktive 92/50 izhaja, da se naročila, katerih predmet so storitve, na�tete v navedeni prilogi I A, oddajajo predvsem v skladu z določbami iz
2008 — CASE C-412/04 the provisions of Title III of that directive which concerns the choice of award procedures and, second, from Article 15 of Directive 93/38 that supply and works contracts and contracts which have as their object services listed in Annex XVI A are to be awarded in accordance with, inter alia, the provisions of Title IV of Directive 93/38, relating to award procedures.
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04 naslova III te direktive, ki je namenjen izbiri postopkov oddaje navedenih naročil, in, drugič, iz člena 15 Direktive 93/38 izhaja, da se naročila blaga in gradenj ter naročila, katerih predmet so storitve, na�tete v prilogi XVI A, oddajo zlasti v skladu s predpisi naslova VI te direktive, ki se nana�a na postopke oddaje naročil.
Therefore, in so far as contracts for the supervision of works must be awarded in accordance with the rules laid down by Directives 92/50 and 93/38, the direct award to the project designer, as resulting from Article 27(2) of Law No 109/1994, infringes those directives as regards contracts which, having regard to their value, fall within the scope of the directives.
Zato ker je treba dodelitev nalog vodenja gradnje opraviti v skladu s pravili, določenimi z direktivama 92/50 in 93/38, neposredna dodelitev projektantu, kot izhaja iz člena 27(2) zakona �t. 109/1994, kr�i ti direktivi v zvezi z naročili, ki glede na svojo vrednost spadajo na področje njune uporabe.
In the second place, in the case of contracts in respect of which the value of the services concerned is below the threshold for application of Directives 92/50 and 93/38, as stated in paragraphs 68 and 82 of this judgment the absence from the applicable national provisions of any express reference to the application of the obligations arising from the Treaty does not mean that there is no need to comply with the principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency when awarding those contracts in so far as the conditions laid down by the caselaw recalled in paragraph 66 of this judgment are satisfied.
Drugič, glede naročil, katerih vrednost zadevnih storitev je nižja od praga za uporabo direktiv 92/50 in 93/38, dejstvo, da v veljavnih nacionalnih določbah ni izrecne navedbe v zvezi z uporabo obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe, ne pomeni, kot je bilo navedeno v točkah 68 in 82 te sodbe, da pri oddaji teh naročil zaradi izpolnitve pogojev, določenih s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 66 te sodbe, ni treba spo�tovati načela enakega obravnavanja ter obveznosti preglednosti pri podeljevanju.
Therefore, the fourth and fifth pleas must be dismissed in so far as they refer to the infringement of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC but are well founded as to the remainder.
Zato je treba četrti in peti očitek v delu, ki se nana�a na zatrjevano kr�itev členov 43 ES in 49 ES, zavrniti, v preostalem delu pa sta utemeljena.
The sixth complaint
Šesti očitek
The sixth complaint concerns Articles 37a to 37c of Law No 109/1994, pursuant to which the authorities may allow the execution by third parties of public works which can be exploited commercially, in accordance with a specific award procedure.
Šesti očitek se nana�a na člene od 37a do 37c zakona �t. 109/1994, v skladu s katerimi uprave lahko dovolijo, da zanje zunanje osebe izvajajo javne gradnje, ki se lahko gospodarsko izkori�čajo, in sicer v skladu s posebnim postopkom oddaje.
During the first stage, third parties are invited to submit, as promoters, proposals for the award of concessions, in respect of which the costs are assumed wholly or in part by the promoters.
V prvi fazi z obvestilom pozovejo tretje, naj kot promotorji predložijo predloge za dodelitev koncesij, v okviru katerih stro�ke v celoti ali deloma nosijo ti promotorji.
Once the proposals submitted have been evaluated, those considered to be in the public interest are selected in a second stage, in the course of which, with respect to each proposal selected, a restricted tender procedure is opened with a view to selecting two further offers.
Po ocenitvi predloženih predlogov se predlogi, za katere se �teje, da so v javnem interesu, izberejo v drugi fazi, v kateri se za vsak izbran predlog začne omejeni postopek, da bi dobili �e dve ponudbi.
A negotiated procedure is then opened by the contracting authority with the promoter and the other third parties who have submitted the two best offers in the tender procedure, the promoter having the opportunity to adapt his proposal to the offer considered most suitable by the contracting authority.
Nato naročnik s promotorjem in tretjima osebama, ki sta predstavili dve najbolj�i ponudbi v okviru navedenega postopka zbiranja ponudb, začne postopek s pogajanji, pri čemer ima promotor možnost, da svoj predlog prilagodi spremembam, ki jih naročnik ocenjuje kot najbolj�e.
The Commission submits that those rules are liable to constitute an infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Komisija trdi, da ta ureditev lahko predstavlja kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
It takes the view that the rules for opening the concession up to competition favour the promoter as compared with all the other potential tenderers for two reasons.
Komisija namreč meni, da načini javnega razpisa za dodelitev koncesije dvojno dajejo prednost promotorju glede na vse druge potencialne konkurente.
First, the promoter is automatically invited to take part in the negotiated procedure for the award of the concession, irrespective of any comparison between his proposal and the offers submitted by the participants in the previous tendering procedure.
Tako bi bil po eni strani promotor avtomatično vabljen k sodelovanju v postopku s pogajanji za dodelitev koncesije, neodvisno od vsakr�ne primerjave med njegovo ponudbo in ponudbami, ki so jih predstavili prej�nji udeleženci zbiranja ponudb.
Second, the promoter has the opportunity to amend his proposal during the negotiated procedure in order to adapt it to the tender considered by the contracting authority to be the most suitable.
Po drugi strani bi promotor med postopkom s pogajanji lahko spremenil svojo ponudbo, tako da bi jo prilagodil ponudbi, ki jo naročnik ocenjuje kot najbolj�o.
In reality, that advantage amounts to the recognition of a right of priority for the promoter in the award of the concession.
Dejansko bi bila ta prednost enakovredna priznanju pravice do prednosti pri dodelitvi koncesije v korist navedenega promotorja.
The Italian Republic states that Community Law 2004, mentioned in paragraph 40 of this judgment, took account of the Commission’s objections.
Italijanska republika pojasnjuje, da so bili z zakonom Skupnosti 2004, navedenim v točki 40 te sodbe, upo�tevani ugovori Komisije.
It is clear from Article 38(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and from the caselaw relating to that provision, that an application must state the subjectmatter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application.
Iz člena 38(1)(c) Poslovnika Sodi�ča in upo�tevne sodne prakse izhaja, da je treba v vsaki tožbi navesti predmet spora in kratek povzetek tožbenih razlogov in da mora biti ta dovolj jasen in natančen, da toženi stranki omogoča pripravo obrambe in Sodi�ču njen preizkus. Iz tega izhaja, da morajo biti temeljni elementi glede dejstev
It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and of fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the heads of claim to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on an objection (Case C-195/04 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-3351, paragraph 22).
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI in prava, na katerih tožba temelji, skladno in razumljivo razvidni iz besedila same vloge in da morajo biti ti predlogi izraženi nedvoumno, da se prepreči, da bi Sodi�če odločilo ultra petitum ali da o očitku ne bi odločilo (sodba z dne 26. aprila 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Finski, C-195/04, ZOdl., str. I-3351, točka 22 in navedena sodna praksa).
In this case, the Commission’s application does not satisfy those requirements so far as the present complaint is concerned.
V obravnavanem primeru tožba Komisije glede tega očitka ne izpolnjuje teh zahtev.
By its application, the Commission seeks a declaration that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil obligations under Directives 92/50, 93/36, 93/37 and 93/38 and Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Komisija sku�a namreč s tožbo doseči, da se ugotovi, da Italijanska republika ni izpolnila določenih obveznosti, določenih z direktivami 92/50, 93/36, 93/37 in 93/38 ter s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
In the sixth complaint, it fails to state precisely which of those directives and/or provisions of the Treaty the Italian Republic is supposed to have infringed by allegedly infringing the principle of equal treatment.
Vendar v okviru tega očitka Komisija ne navaja natančno, katere izmed teh direktiv in/ali določb Pogodbe naj bi Italijanska republika kr�ila z domnevno kr�itvijo načela enakega obravnavanja.
Moreover, as far as concerns Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, those articles do not lay down a general obligation of equal treatment but contain, as is clear from the caselaw cited in paragraph 66 of this judgment, a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of nationality.
Poleg tega člena 43 ES in 49 ES ne določata splo�ne obveznosti enakega obravnavanja, temveč vsebujeta, kot to izhaja iz sodne prakse, navedene v točki 66 te sodbe, prepoved diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo.
The Commission does not give any particulars regarding the existence of such discrimination in this complaint.
Vendar Komisija v zvezi z morebitnim obstojem tovrstne diskriminacije v okviru tega očitka ne predloži nobenega podatka.
Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by adopting:
Upo�tevajoč vse navedeno, je treba ugotoviti, da Italijanska republika s sprejetjem:
— Article 2(1) of Law No 109/1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37;
– člena 2(1) zakona �t. 109/1994 ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv 92/50, 93/36 in 93/37;
— Article 2(5) of Law No 109/1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37; and
– člena 2(5) navedenega zakona ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive 93/37 in
— Articles 27(2) and 28(4) of Law No 109/1994, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50 and 93/38.
– členov 27(2) in 28(4) tega zakona ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv 92/50 in 93/38.
Under Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court may order that the costs be shared or decide that each party is to bear its own costs where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads.
Sodi�če lahko v skladu s členom 69(3) Poslovnika, če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma, odloči, da se stro�ki delijo ali da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke.
Since the Commission has been partly unsuccessful with respect to the second, fourth and fifth complaints, unsuccessful with respect to the third complaint and the sixth complaint has been declared inadmissible, and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful on the first complaint and partly unsuccessful with respect to the second, fourth and fifth complaints, each party is to bear its own costs.
Ker Komisija ni uspela z delom drugega, četrtega in petega očitka in s tretjim očitkom, poleg tega pa je bil �esti očitek razgla�en za nedopustnega, in ker Italijanska republika ni uspela s prvim očitkom ter z delom drugega, četrtega in petega očitka, je treba odločiti, da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke.
Declares that, by adopting:
Italijanska republika s sprejetjem:
— Article 2(1) of Law No 109 of 11 February 1994 — Framework Law on public works (legge quadro in materia di lavori pubblici), as amended by Law No 166 of 1 August 2002, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997;
– člena 2(1) zakona št. 109, okvirnega zakona o javnih gradnjah (legge quadro in materia di lavori pubblici), z dne 11. februarja 1994, kot je bil spremenjen z zakonom št. 166 z dne 1. avgusta 2002, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, Direktive Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga in Direktive Sveta 93/37/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997;
— Article 2(5) of Law No 109/1994 as amended, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37 as amended; and
– člena 2(5) navedenega zakona, kot je bil spremenjen, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive 93/37, kot je bila spremenjena, in
— Articles 27(2) and 28(4) of Law No 109/1994 as amended, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/50 and
– členov 27(2) in 28(4) tega zakona, kot je bil spremenjen, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz direktiv Sveta 92/50 in 93/38/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993
Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors;
2008 – ZADEVA C-412/04 o usklajevanju postopkov naročanja naročnikov v vodnem, energetskem, transportnem in telekomunikacijskem sektorju.
Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs;
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti in Italijanska republika nosita svoje stroške.
Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.
Francoska republika, Kraljevina Nizozemska in Republika Finska nosijo svoje stroške.
Case C-426/05
Zadeva C-426/05
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Avstrija))
(Electronic communications — Networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Appeals — Administrative market analysis procedure)
„Elektronske komunikacije – Omrežja in storitve – Skupni regulativni okvir – Člena 4 in 16 Direktive 2002/21/ES (okvirna direktiva) – Pravno sredstvo – Upravni postopek analize trga“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 15 February 2007
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 15. februarja 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 687
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 708
Approximation of laws — Electronic communications networks and services — Regulatory framework — Directive 2002/21
Približevanje zakonodaj – Omrežja in storitve elektronskih komunikacij – Regulativni okvir – Direktiva 2002/21
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Arts 4(1) and 16(3))
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21, člena 4(1) in 16(3))
SUMMARY — CASE C-426/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-426/05
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/21, Art. 4)
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/21, člen 4)
A provision of national law which, in the context of non-adversarial market analysis proceedings, grants party status only to undertakings (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market and in respect of which specific regulatory obligations are imposed, amended or withdrawn is not, in principle, contrary to Article 4 of Directive 2002/21 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services.
Določba nacionalnega prava, ki v okviru predhodnega postopka analize trga priznava položaj stranke le podjetjem, ki so imela (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, in za ta podjetja uvede, spremeni ali prekliče posebne regulativne obveznosti, načeloma ni v nasprotju s členom 4 Direktive 2002/21 o skupnem regulativnem okviru za elektronska komunikacijska omrežja in storitve.
However, it is for the national court to ensure that national procedural law guarantees the safeguarding of the rights which users and undertakings in competition with an undertaking (formerly) having significant power on the relevant market derive from the Community legal order in a manner which is not less favourable than that in which comparable domestic rights are safeguarded and which does not prejudice the effectiveness of the legal protection of those users and undertakings guaranteed in Article 4 of that directive.
Vendar mora predložitveno sodi�če preveriti, ali nacionalno procesno pravo zagotavlja varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti uporabniki in konkurenti podjetja, ki je imelo (prej) pomembno tržno moč na upo�tevnem trgu, na tak način, da ni manj ugoden kot v primeru primerljivih pravic nacionalnega prava in ne vpliva na učinkovitost pravnega varstva, ki jo tem uporabnikom in konkurentom zagotavlja člen 4 navedene direktive.