natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Two bids were received, one from Varec SA (‘Varec’), the other from Diehl Remscheid GmbH & Co (‘Diehl’). On 28 May 2002, the contract was awarded to Diehl. The award decision listed a number of technical, administrative and legal grounds for excluding Varec’s bid but concluded that Diehl satisfied all the selection criteria. That conclusion was based on, inter alia, certain plans and samples annexed to Diehl’s bid. At Diehl’s request, those items were returned to it after evaluation of the bids. 20.
Prejeti sta bili dve ponudbi, ena od družbe Varec SA (v nadaljevanju: Varec), druga od družbe Diehl Remscheid GmbH & Co (v nadaljevanju: Diehl). Naročilo je bilo 28. maja 2002 dodeljeno družbi Diehl. Odločba o oddaji javnega naročila je vsebovala �tevilne tehnične, upravne in pravne razloge za izključitev ponudbe družbe Varec, ugotovljeno pa je bilo, da je družba Diehl izpolnjevala vsa merila za izbiro. Ta ugotovitev je med drugim temeljila na določenih načrtih in vzorcih, priloženih ponudbi družbe Diehl. Na zahtevo družbe Diehl so ji bili ti dokazi vrnjeni po opravljeni oceni ponudb. 20.
In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État asks the Court:
V teh okoli�činah Conseil d’État spra�uje Sodi�če:
Varec, in its challenge before the Conseil d’État, asserts that Diehl’s bid did not in fact comply with all the criteria for the award.
Družba Varec v tožbi pred Conseil d’État trdi, da ponudba družbe Diehl dejansko ni bila v skladu z vsemi merili za oddajo javnega naročila.
In order to evaluate that claim, it considers, the plans and samples referred to in the preceding paragraph should be examined as evidence both by the reviewing court and by the party who has asked for that review to take place.
V podporo temu zahtevku meni, da bi moralo načrte in vzorce, navedene v prej�nji točki, kot dokaze pregledati tako revizijsko sodi�če kot tudi stranka, ki je zahtevala, naj se ta revizija opravi.
‘Must Article 1(1) of [Directive 89/665/EEC], read with Article 15(2) of [Directive 93/36/EEC], and Article 6 of [Directive 2004/18/EC], be interpreted as meaning that the authority responsible for the appeal procedures provided for in that article must ensure confidentiality and observance of the business secrets contained in the files communicated to it by the parties to the case, including the contracting authority, whilst at the same time being entitled to apprise itself of such information and take it into consideration?’
„Ali je treba člen 1(1) [Direktive Sveta 89/665/EGS], v povezavi s členom 15(2) [Direktive Sveta 93/36/EGS] in členom 6 [Direktive 2004/18/ES], razlagati tako, da mora odgovorni organ v pritožbenem postopku, določenem v tem členu, zagotoviti zaupnost in pravico do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti, ki jih vsebujejo spisi, ki mu jih predložijo stranke v zadevi – vključno z naročnikom –, pri čemer se lahko sam seznani s tovrstnimi podatki in jih upo�teva?“
Written observations have been submitted by the Belgian and Austrian Governments and by the Commission. Varec
Pisna stali�ča so predložile belgijska in avstrijska vlada ter Komisija.
11 — An independent member of the Conseil d’État, some but not all of whose functions and duties correspond to those of an Advocate General in this Court.
11 – Neodvisni član Conseil d’État, katerega naloge in dolžnosti, vendar ne vse, ustrezajo tistim, ki jih ima generalni pravobranilec na tem Sodi�ču.
However, the file lodged by the defendant contracting authority does not contain the relevant items, because they were returned to Diehl.
Vendar, spis, ki ga je vložil naročnik kot tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ne vsebuje zadevnih dokumentov, ker so bili ti vrnjeni družbi Diehl.
Diehl, which has intervened in the proceedings, objects to lodging them on the ground that they embody confidential information and business secrets to which it does not wish Varec to have access. The
Ta družba, ki je posredovala v postopku v glavni stvari, nasprotuje njihovi predložitvi, ker naj bi vsebovali zaupne podatke in poslovne skrivnosti, glede katerih želi, da družba Varec ne bi imela
Civil and Political Rights, where they do not enable business secrets to be safeguarded?’ 12 has not submitted observations because, in its view, the answer to the question posed is not necessary in order to resolve the dispute before the Conseil d’État.
političnih pravicah, če ne omogočata varstva poslovnih skrivnosti?“ 12 je sodbo izdalo
The Constitutional Court delivered its ruling on 19 September 2007.
Ustavno sodi�če 19. se ptembra 2007.
No hearing has been requested and none has been held.
Obravnava se ni zahtevala in se tudi ni opravila.
I had originally envisaged delivering this Opinion on 20 September 2007.
Sprva sem nameravala te sklepne predloge predstaviti 20. septembra 2007.
However, when I learned of the date set for the Constitutional Court’s judgment, I considered it preferable, in order best to assist this Court in reaching its decision, to allow myself the opportunity of consulting that judgment first, and consequently postponed the delivery of this Opinion.
Vendar ko sem izvedela za datum sodbe Ustavnega sodi�ča, se mi je zdelo primerneje, da z namenom, da Sodi�ču čim bolje svetujem pri odločanju, najprej preučim to sodbo in zato odložim predstavitev teh sklepnih predlogov.
It should be added that, by the same judgment, the Conseil d’État also asked the Belgian Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling on the question:
Dodati je treba, da je Conseil d’État z isto sodbo belgijsko ustavno sodi�če prosilo tudi za predhodno odločbo glede vpra�anja:
In its judgment, the Constitutional Court held essentially that it would be contrary to Article 22 of the Constitution, read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to interpret the provisions in question as precluding a defendant authority from relying on the confidentiality of items in the administrative file in order to prevent
Ustavno sodi�če je v sodbi v bistvu odločilo, da bi bilo v nasprotju s členom 22 Ustave, v povezavi s členom 8 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah in členom 17 Mednarodnega pakta o državljanskih in političnih pravicah, če bi se zadevne določbe razlagale tako, da toženemu organu ne bi dopu�čale sklicevanja na zaupnost dokumentov v upravnem spisu, da bi preprečil
12 — The last three provisions cited all guarantee a right to respect for private and family life, widely interpreted as including the protection of confidentiality and as not necessarily excluding activities of a professional or business nature (see, for example, Niemietz v Germany, European Court of Human Rights judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A No 251-B, p. 33, § 29).
12 – Zadnje tri navedene določbe zagotavljajo pravico do spo�tovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja, ki se �iroko razlaga, kot da vključuje varstvo zaupnosti in kot da ne izključuje nujno poklicnih in poslovnih dejavnosti (glej na primer sodbo z dne 16. decembra 1992 v zadevi Niemietz proti Nemčiji, Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice, Series A No 251-B, str.
‘Do Articles 21 and 23 of the Coordinated Laws on the Council of State of 12 January 1973, interpreted as meaning that the confidential documents in the administration’s file must be placed in the administrative file and must be communicated to the parties, infringe Article 22 of the Constitution, whether or not read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on
„Ali člena 21 in 23 usklajenih zakonov o Conseil d’Etat z dne 12. januarja 1973, ki se razlagata tako, da morajo biti zaupni dokumenti iz upravnega spisa vloženi v upravni spis in sporočeni strankam, kr�ita člen 22 Ustave, v povezavi ali ne s členom 8 Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah in členom 17 Mendarodnega pakta o državljanskih in
VAREC need to refer a question for a preliminary ruling and the relevance of that question’.
VAREC žitvi vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje kot njegovo pomembnost“.
13 their communication to the parties and as precluding the Conseil d’État from assessing the alleged confidential nature of such items.
13 njihovo posredovanje strankam in tako, da bi Conseil d’État preprečevale presojo domnevno zaupne narave teh dokumentov.
However, it would be consistent with those higher norms to interpret the provisions as allowing the defendant authority to rely on confidentiality for such purposes and the Conseil d’État to assess the confidential nature of the items.
Vendar bi bilo v skladu s temi hierarhično vi�jimi normami, če bi te določbe razlagali tako, da toženemu organu dopu�čajo sklicevanje na zaupnost za take namene in Conseil d’État presojati zaupno naravo dokumentov.
I see nothing in the circumstances of the present case that would justify calling into question the Conseil d’État’s assessment that an answer to the question posed is necessary to enable it to give judgment.
V okoli�činah tega primera ne vidim ničesar, kar bi lahko upravičilo izpodbijanje presoje Conseil d’État, da je za izdajo sodbe potreben odgovor na postavljeno vpra�anje.
If Varec’s claim is that Diehl’s tender did not meet all the criteria for the award of the contract, if it has not withdrawn that claim in respect of the content of the disputed plans and samples, and if Diehl continues to object to Varec’s gaining access to those items, then, given the procedural rules applicable in the Conseil d’État, an answer to the question referred seems relevant to any decision as to the pursuit of the procedure before that court.
Če družba Varec zatrjuje, da ponudba družbe Diehl ni izpolnjevala vseh meril za oddajo javnega naročila, če te trditve gede na vsebino spornih načrtov in vzorcev ni umaknila, in če družba Diehl družbi Varec �e naprej preprečuje dostop do teh dokumentov, potem se zdi odgovor na zadevno vpra�anje, glede na postopkovna pravila, ki se uporabljajo pred Conseil d’État, upo�teven glede vsake odločitve, ki se nana�a na postopek pred tem sodi�čem.
Varec’s view that the answer to the question posed is not necessary in order to resolve the dispute before the Conseil d’État — a somewhat surprising view, if Varec originally sought production of the disputed evidence — might be interpreted as implicitly casting doubt on the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling.
Mnenje družbe Varec, da odgovor na postavljeno vpra�anje za re�itev spora pred Conseil d’État ni potreben – nekoliko presenetljivo mnenje, glede na to, da je družba Varec sprva želela predložitev spornih dokazov –, bi bilo mogoče razlagati, kot da pomeni dvom o dopustnosti vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje.
In view of the Court’s caselaw to the effect that procedural rules generally apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, whereas substantive rules do not usually apply, in principle, to
Ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča, na podlagi katere se postopkovna pravila na splo�no uporabljajo za vse postopke, ki tečejo v času njihovega začetka veljavnosti, medtem ko se materialna pravila običajno ne nana-
However, the Court has consistently held that ‘in principle it is for the national courts alone to determine, having regard to the particular features of each case, both the
Vendar iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da „je načeloma nacionalno sodi�če samo tisto, ki ob upo�tevanju vsakokratnih dejstev presodi tako potrebo po predlo-
the rules whose interpretation is sought are procedural or substantive.
ali so določbe, katerih razlaga se predlaga, postopkovne ali materialne.
Transparency and effective review
Preglednost in učinkovit pregled
I agree here with the Commission.
V zvezi s tem se strinjam s Komisijo.
A right to the protection of confidential information, although it has procedural ramifications, and even though the context in which it arises before the Conseil d’État is largely a procedural one, is in essence a substantive right.
Pravica do varstva zaupnih podatkov, čeprav ima postopkovne implikacije, in čeprav je okvir, v katerem je predložena Conseil d’État, v veliki meri postopkoven, je v bistvu materialna pravica.
That right first crystallised, in the main proceedings, when Diehl submitted its tender in the original award procedure.
Vpra�anje te pravice se je prvič pojavilo v postopku v glavni stvari, ko je družba Diehl predložila svojo ponudbo v prvotnem postopku oddaje javnega naročila.
What is at issue now is the ongoing protection of that continuing substantive right.
Sedaj gre za vpra�anje nadaljnjega varstva te �e naprej obstoječe materialne pravice.
Consequently, the Community law which falls to be interpreted is that in force at the time of the award procedure in 2002, namely Directives 89/665 and 93/36, to the exclusion of Directive 2004/18.
Zato je treba razlagati pravo Skupnosti, ki je veljalo v času postopka oddaje javnega naročila leta 2002, in sicer direktivi 89/665 in 93/36, ob izključitvi Direktive 2004/18.
15It may be added that in any event Article 6 of the latter directive, although more elaborately worded than Article 15(2) of Directive 93/36,
15Dodamo lahko, da v vsakem primeru člen 6 zadnje direktive, čeprav je njegovo besedilo bolj izčrpno kot besedilo člena 15(2) Direk-
Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665 requires Member States to ensure that award decisions can be reviewed effectively.
Člen 1(1) Direktive 89/665 zahteva, naj države članice zagotovijo, da se odločitve v postopkih oddaje javnih naročil učinkovito pregledajo.
Decisions cannot be reviewed effectively unless the reviewing body has at its disposal all the evidence relevant to assessing whether they were taken in accordance with all the applicable rules and conditions.
Odločitev ni mogoče pregledati učinkovito, razen če ima revizijski organ na voljo vse upo�tevne dokaze za presojo, ali so bile te odločitve sprejete v skladu z vsemi veljavnimi pravili in pogoji.
Transparency, which is an important feature of public procurement procedures, must be guaranteed in order to ‘ensure that public funds are spent honestly and efficiently, on the basis of a serious assessment and without any kind of favouritism or quid pro quo whether financial or political’. 16
Preglednost, ki je pomembna značilnost postopkov javnih naročil, mora biti zagotovljena zato, da se „zagotovi, da se javna sredstva porabijo po�teno in učinkovito, na podlagi resne presoje in brez kakr�nega koli dajanja prednosti ali protidajatev, bodisi finančnih ali političnih.“ 16
14 — See, for example, Case C-201/04 Molenbergnatie [2006] ECR I-2049, paragraph 31 and the caselaw cited there.
14 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 23. februarja 2006 v zadevi Molenbergnatie (ZOdl., str. I-2049), točka 31 in tam navedena sodna praksa.
16 — Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-19/00 SIAC Construction [2001] ECR I-7725, point 33.
16 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zvezi s sodbo z dne 18. oktobra 2001 v zadevi SIAC Construction (Recueil, str. I-7725), točka 33.
15 — See footnote 3 above.
15 – Glej opombo 3 zgoraj.
VAREC of observations or evidence submitted by the other party — or by an independent judicial official, by an administration or by the court whose judgment is appealed against — and to comment on them. 18
VAREC za stali�ča ali dokaze, ki jih je predložila druga stranka – ali neodvisni sodni organ, uprava ali sodi�če, zoper sodbo katerega je vložena pritožba –, in pravico do njih zavzeti stali�če. 18
Consequently, if it is alleged before a review body acting pursuant to Directive 89/665 that a contract was awarded irregularly, and that information taken into account by the contracting authority provides evidence of the irregularity, then the review body can carry out its duty of effective review to the full extent only if it has that information at its disposal.
Zato lahko revizijski organ, ki deluje na podlagi Direktive 89/665 in se pred njim zatrjuje, da je bila oddaja naročila nezakonita, in da podatki, ki jih je upo�teval naročnik, dokazujejo nezakonitost, opravi svojo dolžnost učinkovitega pregleda v celoti le, če ima na voljo te podatke.
The right to a fair hearing
Pravica do po�tenega sojenja
Consequently, where a review body takes information into account in its decision, at least the substance of that information, in so far as it affects that decision, should in principle be available also to all the principal parties to the proceedings 19 in order to respect their right to a fair hearing.
Zato bi morali, kadar revizijski organ pri svoji odločitvi upo�teva podatke, biti ti podatki, vsaj njihovo bistvo, če vplivajo na to odločitev, načeloma na voljo vsem strankam v postopku 19, da bi se spo�tovala njihova pravica do po�tenega sojenja.
As this Court has held, it would infringe a fundamental principle of law to base a judicial decision on facts or documents of which the parties, or one of them, have not been able to take cognisance and in relation to which they have not therefore been able to state their views. 17
Po mnenju Sodi�ča bi bilo kr�eno temeljno pravno načelo, če bi sodna odločba temeljila na dejstvih ali dokumentih, za katere stranke – ali ena izmed njih – niso vedele in glede katerih zato niso mogle podati stali�č. 17
However, it may be thought that a party’s right to a fair hearing is in no way impaired if he is denied access to evidence which is not taken into account to his detriment and which could not have been taken into account in his favour.
Vendar bi bilo mogoče meniti, da pravica stranke do po�tenega sojenja nikakor ni kr�ena, če se ji zavrne dostop do dokazov, ki se niso upo�tevali v njeno �kodo in jih ne bi bilo mogoče upo�tevati v njeno korist.
Such evidence could thus legitimately be withheld from him in order to protect, for example, business secrets, on the basis of a reasonable and duly substantiated application for confidential treatment.
Vpogled v tak dokaz bi ji bilo torej mogoče legitimno preprečiti, na primer za varstvo poslovnih skrivnosti, na podlagi razumne in pravilno obrazložene vloge za zaupno obravnavo.
The European Court of Human Rights has also held that a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair hearing in all civil or criminal proceedings is that both parties must be heard and enjoy equality of arms, so that each party must be able to take cognisance
Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice je prav tako menilo, da je osnovni vidik pravice do po�tenega sojenja v vseh civilnih ali kazenskih postopkih v dejstvu, da morata imeti obe stranki pravico biti sli�ani in mora zanju veljati načelo enakosti orožij, tako da mora imeti vsaka stranka možnost zvedeti
With respect specifically to failure to allow an applicant for judicial review the opportunity to consult evidence in the case-file, see Feldbrugge v the Netherlands, judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A No 99, p. 16, § 44.
Zlasti glede dejstva, da se stranka v pritožbenem postopku ni imela možnosti seznaniti z dokazi iz spisovnega gradiva, glej sodbo z dne 29. maja 1986 v zadevi Feldbrugge proti Nizozemski, Series A �t. 99, str.
17 — Joined Cases 42/59 and 49/59 SNUPAT v High Authority [1961] ECR 53, at p.
17 – Sodba z dne 22. marca 1961 v združenih zadevah 42/59 in 49/59 SNUPAT proti Visoki oblasti, (Recueil, str. 53, str.
84; Case C-480/99 P Plant and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-265, paragraph 24.
84); sodba z dne 10. januar 2002 v zadevi C-480/99 P Plant in drugi proti Komisiji, (Recueil, str. I-265), točka 24.
19 — The position as regards interveners, and the public at large, may legitimately differ.
19 – Stali�če glede intervenientov in �ir�e javnosti se lahko legitimno razlikuje.
Since the request for a preliminary ruling does not concern those aspects, I shall not address them.
Ker se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje ne nana�a na te vidike, jih ne bom obravnavala.
Directive 89/665, governing review procedures, does not explicitly extend that requirement to review bodies.
Direktiva 89/665, v okviru katere so določeni revizijski postopki, te zahteve ne �iri izrecno na revizijske organe.
Under the European Convention on Human Rights and under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 20the right to a fair hearing is an unqualified right.
V skladu z Evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah in v skladu z Listino o temeljnih pravicah 20je pravica do po�tenega sojenja brezpogojna.
However, it does not follow that the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is likewise an absolute right.
Iz tega pa ne sledi, da je upravičenje do razkritja upo�tevnega dokaza prav tako absolutna pravica.
The European Court of Human Rights has indeed consistently held, even in the context of criminal proceedings, that evidence may be withheld where that is necessary to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest.
Iz ustaljene prakse Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice izhaja, da se lahko celo v okviru kazenskega postopka določeni dokazi zadržijo, če je to nujno za za�čito temeljnih pravic drugega posameznika ali za za�čito pomembnega javnega interesa.
All the observations submitted 22express the view that there is none the less an implicit requirement for such bodies to protect business secrets, and I agree.
Iz vseh predloženih stali�č 22izhaja, da morajo ti organi vendarle spo�tovati implicitno zahtevo po varstvu poslovnih skrivnosti, s čimer se strinjam.
A right to such protection is recognised in principle in Community law.
Pravica do takega varstva je načeloma določena v pravu Skupnosti.
However, such measures restricting the rights of the defence are permissible only when they are strictly necessary, and any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities. 21
Vendar so taki ukrepi, ki omejujejo pravice obrambe, dopustni le, če so zares nujni, in vsako oviranje obrambe z omejitvijo pravic je treba zadostno izravnati s postopki pred sodnimi organi. 21
The right to protection of business secrets
Pravica do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti
Under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to good administration includes ‘the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy’.
V skladu s členom 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah pravica do dobrega upravljanja vsebuje „pravico vsake osebe do dostopa do spisa, ki se nana�a nanjo, ob spo�tovanju zakonitih interesov zaupnosti ter strokovne in poslovne tajnosti“.
A general obligation to respect business secrecy is imposed on the Community institutions by Article 287 EC, and confirmed in a number of legislative provisions, particularly in the field of competition.
Člen 287 ES institucijam Skupnosti nalaga splo�no obveznost spo�tovanja poslovne skrivnosti, ki je potrjena v �tevilnih zakonskih določbah, zlasti na področju konkurence.
That obligation, admittedly, is thus binding only on the Community institutions but, in SEP, 23the
Ta obveznost je tako zavezujoča le za institucije Skupnosti, vendar se je Sodi�če v sodbi SEP 23 posebej sklicevalo
20 — Solemnly proclaimed at Nice in December 2000 by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1).
20 – Listino so Parlament, Svet in Komisija svečano razglasili v Nici decembra 2000 (UL 2000, C 364, str. 1).
21 — See, for example, V. v Finland, No 40412/98, § 75, 24 April 2007, and the caselaw cited there.
21 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 24. aprila 2007 v zadevi V. proti Finski, �t. 40412/98, točka 75, in tam navedeno sodno prakso.
Court made specific reference to the existence of a ‘general principle of the right of undertakings to the protection of their business secrets’, of which the Treaty article and subordinate provisions were an expression.
VAREC na obstoj „splošnega načela pravice podjetja do varstva njihovih poslovnih skrivnosti“, ki se izraža v členu Pogodbe in določbah sekundarne zakonodaje.