natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Notwithstanding the fact that such a public service concession is outside the scope of the directives on the different categories of public contracts, public authorities are nonetheless bound, when they envisage granting such a concession, to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in general, and the principle of nondiscrimination on the grounds of nationality, in particular.
Kljub temu, da koncesija storitev javnih služb ne spada na področje uporabe direktiv v zvezi z različnimi kategorijami javnih naročil, morajo javni organi, ko nameravajo podeliti tako koncesijo, na splo�no spo�tovati temeljna pravila Pogodbe ES in predvsem načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva.
More particularly, since such a concession is of a certain crossborder interest, its award, in the absence of any transparency, to an undertaking located in the Member State to which the contracting authority belongs, amounts to a difference in treatment to the detriment of undertakings which might be interested in that concession but which are located in other Member States.
Bolj podrobno, če je taka koncesija v določenem čezmejnem interesu, pomeni njena popolnoma netransparentna podelitev podjetju, ki je v državi članici naročnika, različno obravnavanje v �kodo podjetij, ki bi jih lahko ta koncesija zanimala, vendar so v drugi državi članici.
Unless it is justified by objective circumstances, such a difference in treatment, which, by excluding all undertakings located in another Member State, operates mainly to the detriment of the latter undertakings, amounts to indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality, prohibited under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Razen če je upravičeno z objektivnimi okoli�činami, tako različno obravnavanje, ki je z izključitvijo vseh podjetij iz drugih držav članic predvsem njim v �kodo, pomeni posredno diskriminacijo glede na državljanstvo, ki je na podlagi členov 43 ES in 49 ES prepovedana.
In add -ition, Article 86(1) EC precludes Member States, in the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which they grant special or exclusive rights, from maintaining in force national legislation contrary to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Člen 86(1) ES nasprotuje temu, da države članice glede javnih podjetij ali podjetij, katerim so odobrile posebne ali izključne pravice, ohranijo v veljavi nacionalno ureditev, ki je v nasprotju s členoma 43 ES in 49 ES.
SUMMARY — CASE C-347/06 not only permits but also requires that the termination of such a concession be coupled with a transitional period which enables the contracting parties to untie their contractual relations on acceptable terms both from the point of view of the requirements of the public service and from the economic point of view.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-347/06 predvidljiva, ne le omogoča, ampak tudi določa, da mora biti za odpoved take koncesije določeno prehodno obdobje, ki sopogodbenikom omogoča ureditev njihovih pogodbenih razmerij ob sprejemljivih pogojih tako z vidika zahtev javnih služb kot z gospodarskega vidika.
It is for the referring court to determine whether, in particular, the extension of the length of the transitional period brought about by national legislation can be regarded as being necessary to comply with the principle of legal certainty.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali je mogoče zlasti podalj�anje prehodnega obdobja na podlagi nacionalne ureditve �teti za potrebno, da bi se spo�tovalo načelo pravne varnosti.
Such a difference in treatment can however be justified by the necessity of complying with the principle of legal certainty, which forms part of the Community legal order and is binding on every national authority responsible for implementing Community law.
To različno obravnavanje je lahko upravičeno s potrebo po spo�tovanju načela pravne varnosti, ki je del pravnega reda Skupnosti in velja za vsak nacionalni organ, pristojen za izvajanje prava Skupnosti.
Since Directive 2003/55 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Direct- ive 98/30 requires existing concessions for the distribution of gas to be called in question only in cases of longstanding concessions not expiring for decades which were granted at a time when the Court had not yet held that contracts with a crossborder interest might be subject to duties of transparency arising from primary law, the principle of legal certainty, which requires, particularly, that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects,
Ker Direktiva 2003/55 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30 ne določa obstoječih koncesij za distribucijo plina, s tem, da gre v obravnavanem primeru za staro koncesijo, ki bi morala imeti učinke več desetletij in ki je bila podeljena v obdobju, ko Sodi�če �e ni odločilo, da je iz primarnega prava Skupnosti izhajalo, da bi lahko bile za pogodbe v določenem čezmejnem interesu določene zahteve po preglednosti, načelo pravne varnosti, ki zahteva zlasti, da so pravna pravila jasna in natančna in da je njihova uporaba
(see paras 57-61, 64, 65, 67-73, operative part 2)
(Glej točke od 57 do 61, 64, 65, od 67 do 73 in točko 2 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALPOIARES MADURO delivered on 24 April 2008 1 and transparency arising from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC as well as those of Direct- ive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC 2(‘Directive 2003/55’), in the light of concessions for the distribution of natural gas originally granted without any competitive tendering procedure.
ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih za notranji trg z zemeljskim plinom in o razveljavitvi Direktive 98/30/ES 2 (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 2003/55) glede koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, že v samem začetku podeljenih brez javnega razpisa.
More specifically, the main proceedings concern national legislation establishing a transitional period, twice rescheduled, intended to bring the concessions to an end early, in order to comply with the supposed requirements of Community law.
Natančneje, postopek v glavni stvari zadeva notranjo zakonodajo, v kateri je predvideno prehodno obdobje, dvakrat porazdeljeno in namenjeno predhodni odpravi navedenih koncesij, da bi se uskladila z zahtevami, za katere se predpostavlja, da so določene s pravom Skupnosti.
The effectiveness, even indeed the principle of legality, of Community law can conflict with the requirements of the principle of legal certainty.
Učinkovitost ali celo načelo zakonitosti prava Skupnosti lahko pride navzkriž z zahtevami načela pravne varnosti.
It may thus be necessary to reconcile or arbitrate the divergent interests they pursue in order to satisfy their respective requirements.
Zato je zaradi zahtev teh načel potreben kompromis med njihovimi nasprotujočimi se interesi.
Striking that balance, which is already delicate when the confrontation is between two Community rules, may prove even more difficult when it brings into play a Community rule of law and a national rule of law.
Vendar se iskanje tega ravnotežja, ki je kočljivo že, ko si nasproti stojita dva predpisa Skupnosti, lahko izkaže za �e težavnej�e, kadar gre za predpis Skupnosti in nacionalni predpis.
The principle of primacy does not always appear to be the most appropriate instrument for resolving that potential conflict since the principle of legal certainty, whilst it is a general principle of law common to the majority of national legal systems, is also a general principle of Community law.
Načelo primarnosti namreč ni vedno najuporabnej�e sredstvo za re�evanje tega morebitnega navzkrižja, ker je načelo pravne varnosti sicer splo�no načelo občega prava v večini nacionalnih pravnih redov, vendar je tudi splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti.
In other words, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling require an examination of the extent of the obligations imposed by Community law in the context of rendering contrary national law compatible therewith.
Z drugimi besedami, vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje predvidevajo premislek o obsegu obveznosti, določenih s pravom Skupnosti v okviru uskladitve nacionalnega prava, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
I — The facts in the main proceedings, the national legal background and the reference for a preliminary ruling
I – Dejansko stanje, nacionalni pravni okvir in predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
That is the background to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia sezione staccata di Brescia (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, Separate Chamber for Brescia) (Italy) (‘the TAR’).
Tožeča stranka v glavni stvari, ASM Brescia SpA (v nadaljevanju: ASM Brescia), je prejela koncesijo za distribucijo zemeljskega plina v občini Rodengo Saiano (v nadaljevanju: občina) na podlagi podpisa sporazuma z navedeno občino 27. februarja 1984
The applicant in the main proceedings, ASM Brescia SpA (‘ASM Brescia’), holds a concession for the natural gas distribution service in the Comune di Rodengo Saiano (Municipality of Rodengo Saiano) (‘the municipality’) pursuant to an
V ta okvir se ume�čajo vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia sezione staccata di Brescia (Italija) (v nadaljevanju: TAR).
Concessions in existence for which no expiry date has been set, or for which an expiry date has been set after the end of the transitional period, shall continue until the end of the transitional period. … agreement concluded with the municipality on 27 February 1984 without any competitive tendering procedure for potential operators.
Veljavne koncesije, ki nimajo predvidenega roka, ali če rok nastopi po prehodnem obdobju, veljajo do konca tega prehodnega obdobja. [… ] brez postopka javnega razpisa za morebitne dobavitelje.
The concession was due to expire on 31 December 2029.
Koncesija naj bi se iztekla 31. decembra 2029.
The Italian legislature wished, however, upon transposition of Directive 98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, 3to bring forward the expiry of concessions granted without any competitive tendering procedure.
Italijanski zakonodajalec je kljub temu želel ob prenosu Direktive 98/30/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. junija 1998 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom 3 predčasno odpovedati koncesije, podeljene brez javnega razpisa.
The transitional period referred to in paragraph 5 shall be of five years running from 31 December 2000. …’
V ta namen je 23. maja 2000 sprejel zakonsko uredbo �t. 164 4(v nadaljevanju:
To that end, on 23 May 2000, it adopted Legislative Decree No 164 4(‘Decree No 164/2000’), which established the principle of the freedom of activities involving the import, export, transport and allocation, distribution and sale of gas.
Prehodno obdobje iz odstavka 5 traja pet let od 31. decembra 2000. […]“ uredba �t.
It laid down that, thenceforth, distribution, classified as a municipal public service, was to be entrusted, pursuant to Article 14 of Decree No 164/2000, to concession-holders selected exclusively by a call for tenders for a maximum period of 12 years.
164/2000), s katero so določena načela prostega uvoza, izvoza, prenosa ter proste porazdelitve, distribucije in prodaje plina. S tem je določeno, da distribucijo, ki je označena kot javna občinska storitev, na podlagi člena 14 uredbe �t.
Article 15(7) of Decree No 164/2000 provides, moreover, that the end of the transitional period may be extended for a maximum of five years, that is until 2010, subject to compliance with certain conditions set out therein.
V členu 15(7) uredbe �t. 164/2000 je poleg tega določeno, da se prehodno obdobje lahko podalj�a za največ pet let, torej do leta 2010, če so izpolnjeni nekateri, v tem členu na�teti pogoji.
In order to speed up the award by calls for tenders of existing concessions, Article 15(5) and (7) of Decree No 164/2000 states:
Za pospe�en prehod k dodelitvi veljavnih koncesij prek razpisov je v členu 15(5) in (7) uredbe �t. 164/2000 določeno:
With regard to gas distribution activities, concessions in existence on the date of entry into force of this decree, and also those entrusted to companies created by the
Koncesije za dejavnost distribucije plina, ki so obstajale ob začetku veljavnosti te uredbe, in tiste, ki so bile podeljene družbam, nastalim iz preoblikovanja obstoječih
The applicability of Decree No 273/2005 to the dispute having been recognised, the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) (Italy) granted, by protective order of 21 February 2006, the suspension of the operation of the contested decision.
Ker je bila uporabljivost uredbe �t. 273/2005 v sporu priznana, je Consiglio di Stato z začasno odredbo z dne 21. februarja 2006 odobril zadržanje izvajanja izpodbijane odločbe.
The dispute between the applicant, ASM Brescia, and the municipality with which it is contractually linked reveals the ambiguities of those successive laws.
Spor med tožečim podjetjem ASM Brescia in občino, na katero je podjetje pogodbeno vezano, kaže dvoumnost teh zaporednih zakonodaj.
The lack of agreement between the parties as to the end of the transitional period and, consequently, as to the expiry of the concession in question, led the applicant to bring an action for annulment against the municipality’s resolution of 19 July 2005 fixing the expiry of the concession at 31 December 2005.
Ker med strankama ni dogovora o trajanju prehodnega obdobja in zato tudi ne o prenehanju sporne koncesije, je tožeče podjetje vložilo ničnostno tožbo zoper občinski sklep z dne 19. julija 2005, v katerem je določeno, da navedena koncesija preneha veljati 31. decembra 2005.
Although that question had been resolved, the fact remained that the TAR, which was called upon to examine the substance of the dispute, had doubts as to compatibility with Community law of the extension of the transitional period, during which concessions which should initially have come to an end after that transitional period, had their terms shortened.
Vpra�anje je bilo re�eno, vseeno pa TAR, ki mora preučiti temelj spora, dvomi o združljivosti prava Skupnosti s podalj�anjem prehodnega obdobja, v katerem koncesije, ki bi prvotno morale prenehati veljati po tem prehodnem obdobju, prenehajo veljati prej.
Decree No 273/2005, which entered into force in the course of the main proceedings, should have clarified the situation.
Uredba �t. 273/2005, ki je začela veljati med postopkom, bi morala razjasniti položaj.
It states in Article 23(1) that the expiration of the transitional period is to be automatically deferred until 31 December 2007 and that it may be extended by two years — until 31 December 2009 provided that at least one of the requirements laid down in Article 15(7) of Decree No 164/2000 is fulfilled.
V členu 23(1) je določeno, da se prehodno obdobje samodejno prestavi na 31. december 2007 in da se lahko podalj�a za dve leti, torej do 31. decembra 2009, če je izpolnjen vsaj eden od pogojev, določenih v členu 15(7) uredbe �t. 164/2000.
On the basis of that decree, the applicant thus
Podjetje je tako na podlagi navedene uredbe menilo, da naj bi njegova koncesija veljala najmanj do
EC and the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency?
načeli enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti?
(2) Are subsequent automatic extensions till 31 December 2009 of current concessions for the distribution of natural gas, originally granted without any previous tender procedure, compatible with Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC and the principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination and transparency in the following cases:
Ali je podalj�anje veljavnih koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina v primeru iz prvega vpra�anja in v primerih iz drugega vpra�anja v skladu s četrto, osmo, deseto in osemnajsto uvodno izjavo Direktive 2003/55/ES z dne 26. junija 2003 in členom 23(1) te direktive, členom 10 Pogodbe ter načeloma primernosti in sorazmernosti, zlasti glede na to, da:
(b) the fact that the States are prohibited from adopting or maintaining in force domestic legislation incompatible with the liberalisation of the market in natural gas; when the holder of the concession has acquired more than 100 000 final users, or it distributes more than 100 million cubic metres of gas a year or its field of operations is at least as great as the whole territory of the province;
Ali so naknadna samodejna podalj�anja obstoječih koncesij za distribucijo zemeljskega plina, ki so bile že na začetku podeljene brez predhodnega javnega razpisa, do 31. decembra 2009 v skladu s členi 43, 49, 86(1) in Pogodbe ter načeli enakega obravnavanja, prepovedi diskriminacije in preglednosti, in sicer v teh primerih: a) imajo države obveznost, da dosežejo cilj liberalizacije trga zemeljskega plina pred 1. julijem 2007; a) kadar je koncesionar izvedel združitev družb, ki omogoča preskrbovanje dvakrat več odjemalcev v primerjavi s prvotnimi odjemalci večje družbe, ki se je združevala; b) b) je državam prepovedano sprejemanje ali ohranjanje v veljavi nacionalnih določb, ki so v nasprotju z liberalizacijo trga zemeljskega plina; kadar je koncesionar dosegel preskrbovanje več kot 100.000 končnih odjemalcev ali je letno distribuiral več kot 100 milijonov kubičnih metrov plina, ali opravlja dejavnost na območju, ki je vsaj tako veliko kot celotno ozemlje province; c) c) kadar je bilo vsaj 40 % kapitala družbe koncesionarja prenesenega zasebnim družbenikom?
(c) the fact that the States are obliged to set a reasonable term for the duration of the transitional period and subject it to objective requirements?’ when at least 40% of the conces-sion-holder’s share capital has been transferred to private shareholders?
imajo države obveznost, da za trajanje prehodnega obdobja določijo razumni rok in objektivne zahteve?“
ASM BRESCIA tendering procedure and, second, according to which detailed rules may the competent national authorities extend or modify the length of such a transitional period.
ASM BRESCIA nalni organi lahko podalj�ajo ali spremenijo trajanje takega prehodnega obdobja.
By those questions, the national court raises the question, essentially, of the scope of the obligations imposed on Member States by the Treaty and by the relevant provisions of Directive 2003/55 concerning the concession contracts concluded without a competitive tendering procedure.
S temi vpra�anji predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje o obsegu obveznosti, ki so državam članicam naložene s Pogodbo in upo�tevnimi določbami Direktive 2003/55 o koncesijskih pogodbah, sklenjenih brez javnega razpisa.
Understood thus, the admissibility of the questions referred must be accepted, since they call for an interpretation of Community law which could prove useful in resolving the dispute in the main proceedings. 5
Tako razumljeno je treba dopustnost vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje priznati, ker zahtevajo razlago prava Skupnosti, ki se lahko izkaže kot koristna za razre�itev spora o glavni stvari. 5
II — Reformulation and admissibility of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling questions
II – Preoblikovanje in dopustnost vprašanj za predhodno odločanje
III — Examination of the referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Analiza vprašanj za predhodno odločanje
A — Initial observations on the applicable provisions
A – Uvodne ugotovitve o določbah v uporabi
Since the way in which the questions referred by the national court are formulated might lead to confusion, it is necessary to state at the outset that the national legislation to which the case in the main proceedings relates does not effect the postponement of the concessions’ expiry but provides for their early expiry, structured in the context of a transitional period.
Ker bi lahko oblika vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje, ki jih je postavilo predložitveno sodi�če, povzročila zmedo, je treba najprej pojasniti, da se z nacionalno ureditvijo iz zadeve v glavni stvari ne podalj�uje rok koncesij, ampak se z njo določi, da te v prehodnem obdobju prej prenehajo veljati.
The postponement laid down by the national law giving rise to the case in the main proceedings does not actually concern the length of the concession but that of the transitional period laid down in order to bring the concession to an end early.
Podalj�anje iz nacionalnega pravnega reda, ki je podlaga za postopek v glavni stvari, se dejansko ne nana�a na trajanje koncesije, ampak na trajanje prehodnega obdobja, v katerem naj bi navedena koncesija prenehala veljati prej.
In its first two questions the national court refers to the interpretation of the provisions of primary law, in particular Art -icles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC, and cites, in its third question, the provisions of Directive 2003/55 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas.
Predložitveno sodi�če se v prvih dveh vpra�anjih sklicuje na razlago določb primar -nega prava, zlasti členov 43 ES, 49 ES in 86 ES, v tretjem vpra�anju pa na določbe Direktive 2003/55 o skupnih pravilih notranjega trga z zemeljskim plinom.
It is, however, desirable, in my opinion, to begin this analysis with an examination of the applicability of the provisions of secondary
Vendar se mi zdi smotrno začeti analizo s preučitvijo uporabljivosti določb sekundarne zakonodaje v sporu. Če bi morale biti dejanske in pravne okoli�čine izključene s področja uporabe
5 — See, to that effect, Case C-324/98 Telaustria and Telefonadress [2000] ECR I-10745.
5 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 7. decembra 2000 v zadevi Telaustria in Telefonadress (C-324/98, Recueil, str. I-10745).
Subject to that reservation, shared by the parties, the Court is actually asked to determine, first, whether Community law precludes the grant of a transitional period to the undertakings concerned in order to bring to an end early concession contracts concluded without any competitive
Glede na ta pridržek strank se Sodi�ču dejansko predlaga, naj ugotovi, prvič, ali je pravo Skupnosti v nasprotju s podelitvijo prehodnega obdobja zadevnim podjetjem, v katerem bi sklenjene koncesijske pogodbe brez javnega razpisa predhodno prenehale veljati, in, drugič, kako pristojni nacio-
While the factual and legal circumstances concerned are to be excluded from the scope of Direct- ive 2003/55, the obligations linked to the fundamental freedoms resulting from Art -icles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86(1) EC will be decisive for the resolution of this case.
Direktive 2003/55, bi obveznosti glede temeljnih svobo�čin, kot izhajajo iz čle -nov 43 ES, 49 ES in 86(1) ES, ostale odločilne za namene razre�itve te zadeve.
Although the contract in question falls within that definition, Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts 8 cannot be invoked.
Če je zadevna konvencija v skladu s to definicijo, se ni mogoče sklicevati na Direktivo 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev.
That directive expressly excludes service concessions from its scope.
8Ta s področja uporabe izrecno izključuje koncesije storitev.
By contrast, since Directive 2003/55 specifically concerns common rules for the internal market in natural gas, the national court may legitimately raise a question as to the interpretation of its provisions and whether they may be relied on in the main proceedings.
Po drugi strani se predložitveno sodi�če, če se Direktiva 2003/55 nana�a posebej na skupna pravila za notranji trg z zemeljskim plinom, lahko legitimno spra�uje o možnosti sklicevanja na določbe v sporu o glavni stvari in njihovi razlagi.
B — The third question: the applicability of Directive 2003/55 to the main proceedings
B – Tretje vprašanje: uporabljivost Direktive 2003/55 v sporu o glavni stvari