natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It is for that reason that the national court must, applying Community law, order the aid recipient to pay interest in respect of the period of unlawfulness.
Vendar bodo v tem primeru z vidika subjektov, ki niso prejemniki te pomoči, zaradi nezakonitosti pomoči ob njenem izplačilu ti subjekti izpostavljeni neuresničenemu tveganju izvajanja pomoči, ki ni združljiva s skupnim trgom, in konkurenčnim učinkom pomoči, ki je združljiva s skupnim trgom, morda prej, kot bi bilo nujno.
The Court stated in addition that, within the framework of its domestic law, the national court may, if appropriate, also order the recovery of the unlawful aid, without prejudice to the Member State’s right to re-implement it subsequently.
Z vidika prejemnika pomoči bo neupravičena prednost neplačilo obresti, ki bi jih ta plačal za zadevni znesek pomoči, združljive s skupnim trgom, če bi si moral ta znesek izposoditi na trgumed čakanjem na odločbo Komisije, in izboljšanje njegovega konkurenčnega položaja glede na druge subjekte na trgumed trajanjem nezakonitosti.
The national court may also be required to uphold claims for compensation for damage caused by reason of the unlawful nature of the aid.
Zato mora nacionalno sodišče na podlagi prava Skupnosti prejemniku pomoči naložiti plačilo obresti za obdobje nezakonitosti.
Moreover, in this judgment, the Court stated that where the Community judicature annuls a Commission decision declaring compatible with the common market aid which, contrary to the prohibition laid down by the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, had been implemented without awaiting the Commission’s final decision, the presumption of the lawfulness of the acts of the Community institutions and the rule that annulment is retroactive apply in turn.
Poleg tega je Sodišče ob tej priložnosti navedlo, da če sodišče Skupnosti razglasi za nično odločbo Komisije, s katero je bilo ugotovljeno, da so pomoči, ki so se zaradi neupoštevanja prepovedi iz člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES izvajale, ne da bi se počakalo na dokončno odločbo Komisije, združljive s skupnim trgom, se domneva zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti in pravilo o retroaktivnosti ničnosti uporabita zaporedno.
Aid implemented after the Commission’s positive decision is presumed lawful until the Community judicature decides to annul that decision and subsequently, on the latter decision, the aid is deemed, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, not to have been declared compatible by the annulled decision, with the result that its implementation must be regarded as unlawful.
Za pomoči, izvajane po pozitivni odločbi Komisije, se domneva, da so zakonite do odločbe sodišča Skupnosti o razglasitvi ničnosti, in nato z dnem te odločbe za zadevne pomoči v skladu s členom 231, prvi odstavek, ES velja, da z nično odločbo niso bile razglašene za združljive s skupnim trgom, tako da je treba njihovo izvajanje obravnavati kot nezakonito.
In that case, the rule arising from the first paragraph of Article 231 EC puts a stop, retroactively, to the application of the presumption of lawfulness.
V tem primeru se s pravilom iz člena 231, prvi odstavek, ES retroaktivno prekine uporaba domneve zakonitosti.
Accordingly, the obligation arising from the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC to remedy the consequences of the aid’s unlawfulness extends also, for the purposes of calculating the sums to be paid by the recipient, and save for exceptional circumstances, to the period between the adoption of the Commission’s positive decision and its annulment by the Community judicature.
Obveznosti z člena 88(3), zadnji stavek, ES, da se odpravijo učinki nezakonitosti, tako zajema pri izračunu zneskov, ki jih mora plačati prejemnik, razen v izjemnih okoliščinah, tudi obdobje od sprejetja pozitivne odločbe Komisije do razglasitve ničnosti navedene odločbe s strani sodišča Skupnosti.
With regard to value added tax, Case C-288/07 Isle of Wight Council andOthers (judgment of 16 September 2008) is worthy of mention. In that judgment, the Court clarified the scope of a number of expressions which appear in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (31).
Na področju davka na dodano vrednost je treba omeniti zadevo Isle of Wight Council in drugi (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2008, C-288/07), v kateri je Sodišče pojasnilo pomen več izrazov iz člena 4(5), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 77/388 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članico prometnih davkih31.
The Court found that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as non-taxable persons of bodies governed by public law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.
Sodišče je tako razsodilo, da je treba znatno izkrivljanje konkurence, ki bi ga povzročila obravnava oseb javnega prava, ki delujejo kot organi oblasti, kakor da niso davčni zavezanci, presoditi glede na zadevno dejavnost kot tako, ne pa glede na ne ki lokalni trg.
The Court also stated that the expression‘would lead to’, for the purposes of that provision, is to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.
Sodišče je prav tako pojasnilo, da je treba izraz„bi […] povzročila“ v smislu navedenega člena razlagati tako, da ne zajema le dejanske konkurence, ampak tudi potencialno, če je možnost, da zasebni subjekt vstopi na upoštevni trg, dejanska, in ne zgolj hipotetična.
The word‘significant’is, for the purposes of that provision, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.
Izraz„znatno“ v smislu istega člena pa je treba razumeti tako, da mora biti izkrivljanje dejanske ali potencialne konkurence več kot le zanemarljivo.
Once again, the case-law has proved to be particularly fertile in this area, in which the EuropeanUnion is extremely active.
Sodna praksa se je spet izkazala za zelo bogato na področju, na katerem je Evropska unija zelo dejavna.
Reference will be made first of all to a series of judgments which have supplemented the already abundant case-law on public procurement.
Najprej je treba omeniti več sodb, ki so dopolnile že tako bogato sodno prakso na področju javnih naročil.
In Case C-213/07 Michaniki (judgment of 16 December 2008), the Court settled the question whether Member States have discretion to include in their national legislation further grounds for the exclusion of tenderers in addition to those provided for in the relevant Community
Sodišče je v zadevi Michaniki (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2008, C-213/07) odločalo o vprašanju, ali imajo države članice možnost, da v nacionalno zakonodajo dodajo druge razloge za izključitev ponudnika od predvidenih z upoštevnimi direktivami Skupnosti.
P re flight :
Sodišče je
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Šesta direktiva Sveta z dne 17. maja 1977 o usklajevanju zakonodaje držav članico prometnih davkih – Skupni sistem davka na dodano vrednost: enotna osnova za odmero (77/388/EGS) (UL L 145, str. 1).
Court of Justice directives. The Court decided that the first paragraph of Article 24 of Directive 93/37 (32) must be interpreted as listing exhaustively the grounds based on objective considerations of professional quality which are capable of justifying the exclusion of a contractor from participation in a public works contract but as not precluding a Member State from providing for further exclusionary measures designed to ensure observance of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of transparency, provided that suchmeasures do not go beyondwhat is necessary to achieve that objective.
Sodišče odločilo, da je treba člen 24, prvi odstavek, Direktive 93/3732 razlagati tako, da izčrpno našteva razloge, ki temeljijo na objektivni presoji strokovne usposobljenosti in lahko upravičijo izključitev gradbenika iz udeležbe pri javnem naročilu za gradnje, vendar ne onemogoča, da država članica določi druge izključitvene ukrepe, katerih namen je zagotoviti spoštovanje načela enakega obravnavanja ponudnikov in načela preglednosti, če taki ukrepi ne prekoračijo okvirov, ki so potrebni za doseganje tega cilja.
Since Member States enjoy a certain discretion, it follows that Communitylaw does not preclude the adoption of national measures designed to avoid the risk of occurrence of practices capable of jeopardising transparency and distorting competition, a risk which could arise from the presence, amongst the tenderers, of a contractor active in the media sector or connected with a person involved in that sector, and thus to prevent or punish fraud and corruption.
Ker imajo države članice določeno diskrecijsko pravico, pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje sprejetju nacionalnih ukrepov, katerih namen je, da se prepreči tveganje, da se pojavijo prakse, ki utegnejo ogroziti preglednost in izkrivljati konkurenco, ki bi lahko bilo rezultat tega, da je med ponudniki podjetnik, ki opravlja dejavnost v sektorju informacijskih medijev ali je povezan z osebo, ki je dejavna v tem sektorju, in da se tako prepreči ali zajezi go l ju ê ja ali korupcija.
However, a national provisionwhich establishes a system of general incompatibility between the sector of public works and that of the media has the consequence of excluding from the award of public contracts public works contractors who are also involved in the media sector on account of a connection as owner, main shareholder, partner or management executive, without affording them the possibility of showing that there is no real risk of that type.
Vendar je posledica nacionalne določbe, s katero se uvaja splošna nezdružljivost med gradbenim sektorjem in sektorjem informacijskih medijev, da se iz oddaje javnih naročil izključijo gradbeniki, ki so dejavni tudi v sektorju informacijskih medijev, ker so njihovi lastniki, glavni delničarji, družbeniki ali ker jih upravljajo, ne da bi imeli kakršno koli možnost dokazati, da dejanskega tovrstnega tveganja ni.
Accordingly, by excluding an entire category of public works contractors on the basis of such an irrebuttable presumption, such a provision goes beyondwhat is necessary to achieve the claimed objectives.
Taka določba prekoračuje okvire, ki so potrebni za doseganje navedenih ciljev, s tem da izključuje celotno kategorijo gradbenikov na podlagi navedene neizpodbojne domneve.
In Case C-324/07 Coditel Brabant (judgment of 13 November 2008), the Court decided that Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and the concomitant obligation of transparency do not preclude a public authority from awarding, without calling for competition, a public service concession to an inter-municipal cooperative society of which all the members a republic authorities, where those public authorities exercise over that cooperative society control similar to that exercised over their own departments and where that society carries out the essential part of its activities with those public authorities.
V zadevi Coditel Brabant (sodba z dne 13. novembra 2008, C-324/07) je Sodišče odločilo, da člena 43 ES in 49 ES, načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo ter obveznost preglednosti, ki iz njih izhaja, ne nasprotujejo temu, da javnopravna korporacija brez razpisa podeli koncesijo za javne storitve medobčinski zadrugi, katere vsi člani so javnopravne korporacije, če te javnopravne korporacije izvajajo nad to zadrugo podoben nadzor kot nad svojimi službami in če navedena zadruga opravlja glavni del svoje dejavnosti za te javnopravne korporacije.
Theremust be a power of decisive influence over both the strategic objectives and significant decisions of the concessionaire.
Pri tem mora biti podana možnost odločilno vplivati na strateške cilje in na pomembne odločitve koncesionarja.
It follows that, in circumstances in which decisions regarding the activities of such an inter-municipal cooperative society owned exclusively by public authorities are taken by bodies, created under the statutes of that society, which are composed of representatives of the affiliated public authorities, the control exercisedmay be regarded as enabling those authorities to exercise over the cooperative society control similar to that exercised over their own departments.
Iz tega sledi, da se lahko v okoliščinah, ko odločitve glede dejavnosti navedenemedobčinske zadruge, ki je v lasti izključno javnopravnih korporacij, sprejemajo organi te zadruge, določeni v statutu in v katerih so predstavniki včlanjenih javnopravnih korporacij, nadzor, ki ga nad temi odločitvami izvajajo navedene javnopravne korporacije, šteje za tak, da omogoča podoben nadzor nad to zadrugo kot nad svojimi službami.
Where a public authority joins an inter-municipal cooperative of which all the members a republic authorities in order to transfer to that cooperative society the management of a public service, it is possible, in order for the control to be regarded as similar to that exercised by a public body over its own departments, for it to be exercised jointly, decisions being taken by amajority, as the case may be.
Če se javnopravna korporacija v člani v medobčinsko zadrugo, katere vsi člani so javnopravne korporacije, da bi nanjo prenesla izvajanje javne storitve, je mogoče nadzor, da bi ga bilo mogoče opredeliti za podobnega nadzoru, ki ga izvaja javna oseba nad svojimi službami, izvajati skupaj z večinskim odločanjem, če je to predvideno.
The control exercised by a concession-granting public authority must be similar to that which the authority exercises over its own departments, but it need not be identical to it in every respect.
Nadzor javnega organa, ki podeljuje koncesijo, mora namreč biti podoben nadzoru, ki ga izvaja nad svojimi službami, vendar ni treba, da je popolnoma enak.
The control exercised over the concessionaire must be effective, but it is not essential that it be exercised individually.
Nadzor nad koncesionarjem mora biti učinkovit, vendar ni nujno, da je posamezen.
It must therefore be recognised that, where a number of public authorities own a concessionaire to which they entrust the performance of one of their public service tasks, the control which those public authorities exercise over that entity may be exercised jointly.
Treba je torej priznati, da če je več javnopravnih korporacij udeleženih v koncesionarju, ki mu zaupajo izvajanje ene od javnih storitev, lahko javnopravne korporacije ta nadzor nad tem subjektom izvajajo skupaj.
As regards collective decision-making bodies, the procedure which is used for adopting decisions— such as, inter alia, adoption bymajority— is of no importance.
Postopek, uporabljen za sprejetje odločitve, zlasti uporaba večine, glede kolegijskega organa ni pomemben.
In Case C-412/04 Commission v Italy [2008] ECR I-619, the Court held that a Member State which makes mixed works, supply and service contracts and supply or service contracts which include ancillary works, if the works represent more than 50 % of the total value of the relevant contract, subject to the national rules on public works contracts, fails to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50 (33), 93/36 (34) and 93/37 (35).
V zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (sodba z dne 21. februarja 2008, C-412/04) je Sodišče razsodilo, da država članica, ki uporablja nacionalno ureditev glede javnih naročil gradenj za mešana naročila gradenj, blaga in storitev ter za naročila blaga ali storitev, ki vključujejo dodatna dela, če ta dela pomenijo več kot 50 % celotne cene zadevnega naročila, ne izpolni obveznosti iz direktiv 92/5033, 93/3634 in 93/3735.
Where a contract contains both elements relating to a public works contract and elements relating to another type of contract, it is the main purpose of the contract that determines which Community directive on public procurement is to be applied.
Ko namreč pogodba hkrati vsebuje elemente, ki se nanašajo na javno naročilo gradenj, in elemente, ki se nanašajo na neko drugo vrsto naročila, glavni predmet pogodbe določa, katera direktiva Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil se bo uporabila.
The assessment must be made in the light of the essential obligations which predominate and which, as such, characterise the transaction, as opposed to those which are only ancillary or supplementary in nature and are required by the very purpose of the contract; the value of the various matters covered by the contract is, in that regard, just one criterion among others to be taken into account for the purposes of the assessment.
Do te določitve se mora priti glede na bistvene obveznosti, ki prevladajo in ki kot take določajo to naročilo, ne pa glede na obveznosti, ki so le nebistvene ali dopolnilne in so določene s samim predmetom pogodbe, pri čemer je zadevna vrednost posameznih predstavljenih storitev le eno izmed meril, ki jih je treba upoštevati za navedeno določitev.
The Court also held that if an agreement concluded between a private person who is the owner of development l and and the municipal authority satisfies the criteria for the definition of a‘public works contract’within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 93/37, the estimated value which must in principle be taken into account in order to ascertain whether the threshold set by the directive is attained and whether, therefore, the award of the contract must comply with the rules on advertising laid down therein may be calculated solely by reference to the total value of the various works, by adding together the value of the various lots.
Sodišče je prav tako razsodilo, da kadar pogodba, sklenjena med posameznikom, lastnikom zemljišč, ki se delijo na sklope, in komunalno upravo, ustreza merilom opredelitve pojma„javna naročila gradenj“ v smislu člena 1(a) Direktive 93/37, je treba ocenjeno vrednost – ki je načeloma upoštevana pri ugotovitvi, ali je bil dosežen prag, določen sto direktivo, in ali mora zato dodelitev naročila upoštevati pravila oglaševanja, ki jih ta določa – upoštevati le glede celotne vrednosti gradenj in del, in sicer s seštevkom vrednosti posameznih sklopov.
The only permitted exceptions to the application of Directives 92/50 and 93/38 (36) are those which are exhaustively and expressly mentioned therein.
Edini izjemi, ki dovoljujeta uporabo direktiv 92/50 in 93/3836, sta namreč tisti, ki sta tam taksativno in izrecno navedeni.
In another case involving the same parties (judgment of 8 April 2008 in Case C-337/05 Commission v Italy), the question to be determined was whether a Member State can award directly to an undertaking, without complying with the procedures provided for by Directive 93/36 (37), contracts for the purchase of helicopters to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps.
V drugi zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (sodba z dne 8. aprila 2008, C-337/05) je bilo zastavljeno vprašanje, ali lahko država članica naročilo za nakup helikopterjev za potrebe več vojaških in civilnih korpusov podjetju od da neposredno s kršenjem postopkov, ki so določeni z Direktivo 93/3637.
The Court found, first of all, that such a procedure cannot be justified by the existence of an‘in-house’relationship if a private undertaking has a shareholding, even a minority holding, in the capital of the company which produces the helicopters, in which the contracting authority in question is also a shareholder, as the undertaking’s shareholding precludes the authority from exercising over that company a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments.
Sodišče je najprej razsodilo, da take prakse ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti z obstojem odnosa„in house“, če ima zasebno podjetje delež – čeprav samo manjšinski – v kapitalu družbe, ki proizvaja navedene helikopterje in v kateri je udeležen tudi zadevni naročnik, tako da ta naročnik nemore nad to družbo izvajati podobnega nadzora kot nad svojimi službami.
Council Directive 93/38/EECof 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).
Direktiva 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).
Therefore, the purchase of equipment the use of which for military purposes is hardly certain must necessarily comply with the rules governing the award of public contracts.
Sodišče helikopterjev vojski zaradi uporabe v civilne namene in niti obveznost zaupnosti nemore preprečiti spoštovanja teh pravil.
Consequently, the negotiated procedure is exceptional in nature and may be applied only in cases which are set out in an exhaustive list.
Zato je postopek s pogajanji izjema in se lahko uporabljale v taksativno naštetih primerih.
Since Directive 93/36 must be interpreted strictly in order to prevent it being deprived of its effectiveness, the Member States cannot provide for the use of the negotiated procedure in cases not provided for by that directive or add new conditions to the cases expressly provided for which make that procedure easier to use.
Ker je treba Direktivo 93/36 razlagati ozko, saj bi seji sicer odvzel polni učinek, države članice ne bi smele določati primerov uporabe postopka s pogajanji, ki niso določeni sto direktivo, niti razvrstiti primerov, ki so izrecno urejeni, po novih merilih, katerih posledica bi bila lažja uporaba tega postopka.
Furthermore, the burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying a derogation from those rules lies on the person seeking to rely on those circumstances.
Poleg tega mora tisti, ki se želi sklicevati na izjemo, dokazati, da dejansko obstajajo posebne okoliščine, ki jo upravičujejo.
Reference will next be made, in no particular order, to other cases which are of particular interest.
Nato je treba omeniti, križem kražem, če se temu lahko tako reče, druge posebno zanimive sodbe.
In Case C-452/06 Synthon (judgment of 16 October 2008), the Court was required to interpret Article 28 of Directive 2001/83 (38) and held that that provision precludes a Member State to which an application is made for mutual recognition of a marketing authorisation of a medicinal product for human use granted by another Member State under the abridged procedure provided for in Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of that directive from refusing that application on the ground that the medicinal product in question is not essentially similar to the reference product.
V zadevi Synthon (sodba z dne 16. oktobra 2008, C-452/06) je moralo Sodišče razlagati člen 28 Direktive 2001/8338 in je razsodilo, da nasprotuje temu, da bi država članica, na katero je bila naslovljena vloga za medsebojno priznanje dovoljenja za promet z zdravilom za uporabo v humani medicini, ki ga je izdala druga država članica po skrajšanempostopku iz člena 10(1) (a)(iii) iste direktive, zavrnila to vlogo, ker zadevno zdravilo ni bistveno podobno referenčnemu zdravilu.
The existence of a risk to public health constitutes the only ground that a Member State is entitled to rely on to object to the recognition of a marketing authorisation granted by another Member State.
Obstoj tveganja za javno zdravje namreč pomeni edini razlog, na katerega se država članica sme sklicevati, če želi nasprotovati priznanju dovoljenja za promet, ki ga je izdala druga država članica.
In addition, a Member State wishing to rely on such a ground is required to comply with a specifically prescribed procedure for provision of information, concerted action and arbitration.
Poleg tega mora država članica, ki se želi sklicevati na tak razlog, ravnati v skladu s posebej predvidenim postopkom obveščanja, posvetovanja in arbitraže.