natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, as concerns the caselaw already cited, the Court held in Parking Brixen that ‘[i]t is for the concessiongranting public authority to evaluate, subject to review by the competent courts, the appropriateness of the detailed arrangements of the call for competition to the particularities of the public service concession in question’ but a complete lack of any call for tenders is incompatible with the principles of the Treaty (paragraph 50, which cites paragraphs 61 and 62 of the judgment in Teleaustria and Telefonadress), 43 an approach which may be applied to any type of contract.
Tako je Sodi�če, med že navedenimi sodbami, v sodbi z dne 13. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Parking Brixen navedeno, da je „[j]avni organ, ki podeljuje koncesije, […] tisti, ki pod nadzorom pristojnih sodi�č presodi, ali načini javnega razpisa ustrezajo posebnim značilnostim zadevnih koncesij za storitve javnih služb“; vendar da neizvedba vsakr�nega postopka ni v skladu s pravili, ki se uporabljajo (točka 50, ki navaja točki 61 in 62 sodbe Telaustria in Telefonadress) 43, kar se lahko prenese na vse vrste javnih naročil.
In a wider context, in the Opinion in Coname, Advocate General Stix-Hackl expressed uncertainty as to whether the fundamental freedoms require uniform rules for all awards (point 70), and proposed a simplified set of rules which assesses the different categories on the basis of their relevance to the internal market (point 75 et seq).
Generalna pravobranilka Stix-Hackl je s �ir�ega vidika v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Coname izrazila dvom, ali temeljne svobo�čine zahtevajo enotna pravila za vse oddaje naročil (točka 70), in predlagala poenostavljeno ureditev, ki bi opredelila kategorije javnih naročil na podlagi njihove pomembnosti za notranji trg (točka 75 in naslednje).
In Coname, the Court analysed the direct award by an Italian local authority of the
Sodi�če je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Coname vztrajalo pri zgoraj navedenih
43 — In point 43 of the Opinion in that case, Advocate General Fennelly states that ‘substantive compliance with the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality requires that the award of concessions respect a minimum degree of publicity and transparency’ but does not require ‘the awarding entity to apply by analogy the provisions of the most relevant … directives’.
43 – Generalni pravobranilec Fennelly je v točki 43 sklepnih predlogov v tej zadevi pojasnil, da „stvarno spo�tovanje načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva zahteva, da dodelitev koncesije upo�teva minimalno stopnjo ogla�evanja in preglednosti“, čeprav to po njegovem mnenju ne pomeni, da „naročnik po analogiji uporablja [upo�tevne] določbe direktiv“.
From the foregoing I conclude, first of all, that regard must always be had to the principles of equal treatment and transparency as laid down in the Treaty, without
Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev lahko sklepam, da se načeli preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja, izraženi v Pogodbi, uporabljata v vseh okoli�činah, ne da bi to morali
COMMISSION v ITALY contrary to caselaw which, in the Coname judgment, allows direct awards in certain situations without the need to hold an invitation to tender (point 21).
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI določati predpisi sekundarnega ali nacionalnega prava 44, in da mora v sedanjem stanju postopka s povabilom k oddaji ponudb (točka 21).
the need for provisions of secondary law or national law calling for observance those principles; 44 and, second, that the degree of publication of a call for tenders is currently a matter for each Member State, subject to certain restrictions.
prava stopnjo ogla�evanja ponudb določiti vsaka država članica, za kar veljajo določene omejitve.
In any event, it remains possible to monitor observance of those principles by individual acts as was the case in, for example, in the Parking Brixen and Coname judgments. 45
Vsekakor je �e naprej mogoče nadzirati skladnost individualnih aktov s temi načeli, kot je Sodi�če storilo, na primer, v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Parking Brixen in Coname 45.
VII — Examination of the grounds of failure to fulfil obligations
VII – Preučitev razlogov, navedenih v podporo tožbi
In the light of the analysis carried out, it is my view that neither the Directives nor the Treaty require the Member States expressly to lay down general provisions for excluded contracts, concerning the application of the principles of equal treatment and transparency or publicity which are essential to free competition.
Glede na zgornjo razlago menim, da niti direktive niti Pogodba državam članicam glede izključenih naročil ne nalagajo, da izrecno predvidijo splo�ne določbe v zvezi z uporabo načel preglednosti, enakega obravnavanja in ogla�evanja, ki jih zahteva svobodna konkurenca.
Any action by the Member States in that regard would be voluntary rather than the result of an obligation arising from membership of the Union.
Država članica, ki bi sprejela taka pravila, bi to storila po svoji volji in ne da bi ravnala v skladu z obveznostjo, ki izhaja iz njenega članstva Uniji.
To conclude otherwise would give rise to the significant practical difficulties set out in the Coname Opinion, such as the choice of the means of publication and the minimum content of the notice (points 96 and 97), because the Directives make a distinction based on the financial value of the activities concerned.
Drugačna re�itev bi povzročila velike praktične težave, ki jih generalna pravobranilka Stix-Hackl navaja v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Coname, kot so izbira načina objave ali minimalna vsebina obvestila o razpisu (točki 96 in 97), saj direktive razlikujejo med vrednostmi storitev.
At the beginning of this Opinion, I stated that the Commission complains that Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations in the field of public contracts by excluding certain procurement procedures from the rules and provisions of Community law, essentially in two ways; first, by providing that the value of ancillary works is the sole criterion for determining whether mixed contracts fall within the scope of the Community legislation; and,
Na začetku teh sklepnih predlogov sem navedel, da Komisija Italijanski republiki očita, da ni izpolnila obveznosti na področju javnih naročil, ko je predvsem na dva načina izključila nekatere oddaje naročil s področja uporabe pravil in načel zakonodaje Skupnosti: prvič, ko je vrednost dodatnih del postavila kot edino merilo, s katerim je
45 — Cases C-507/03, C-532/03 and C-195/04, cited in footnote 36, in which judgment is pending.
45 – Glej tudi zadeve C-507/03, C-532/03 in C-195/04, ki potekajo pred Sodi�čem in so opisane v opombi 36.
44 — However, the Italian legislature included a reference to those principles in the 2005 amendment, which I will discuss below.
44 – Vendar je italijanski zakonodajalec ob reformi leta 2005, na katero se bom skliceval v nadaljevanju, vztrajal pri teh načelih.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-412/04
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-412/04 mogoče določiti pravno ureditev me�anih naročil, in drugič, ko ni navedla, da je treba, če pragovi iz direktiv niso doseženi, spo�tovati načeli preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja, ki izhajata iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
Accordingly, in the case before the Court, regard must be had to the legislation in force at the end of the twomonth period allowed in the reasoned opinion of 15 October 2003, but not to any legislation adopted subsequently.
Posledično se je treba v tej zadevi omejiti na zakonodajo, ki je veljala ob izteku dvomesečnega roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju z dne 15. oktobra 2003, in ne upo�tevati poznej�ih sprememb.
B — Definition of mixed contracts
B – Opredelitev mešanih naročil
Although the defendant Government specifically contests the claim that the provisions of Italian law governing works carried out by private persons which are deductible from urban development fees are incompatible with Community law, it submits that the other infringements detailed by the plaintiff were rectified as a result of the amendments introduced by Law No 62/2005 of 18 April, Legge comunitaria 2004. 46
Čeprav tožena vlada zanika, da so določbe njenega pravnega reda o izvedbi gradenj s strani posameznikov, ki se odbijejo od urbanističnega davka, v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, dodaja, da so bile druge neskladnosti, ki jih je ugotovila tožeča stranka, odpravljene s spremembami, ki izhajajo iz zakona �t. 62/2005 z dne 18. aprila 2005 46.
Mixed works, supply and service contracts and mixed supply and service contracts which include ancillary works must comply with the Italian implementing legislation if those works constitute more than 50% of the price (Article 2(1) of Law No 109/94 and, similarly, Article 3(3) of Legislative Decree No 157/95).
Me�ana naročila gradenj, blaga in storitev ter naročila blaga in naročila storitev, ki vključujejo dodatna dela, morajo spo�tovati italijansko zakonodajo o prenosu, če ta dela predstavljajo več kot 50 % cene (člen 2(1) zakona �t. 109/94 in enako člen 3(3) uredbezakona �t. 157/95).
Suffice it to recall the caselaw of the Court to the effect that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes. 47
Zadostuje, da tu opozorim, da je treba na podlagi sodne prakse obstoj neizpolnitve obveznosti presojati glede na položaj v državi članici, kot je obstajal ob izteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju, in da Sodi�če ne sme upo�tevati pozneje sprejetih sprememb. 47
The Commission cites the Gestión Hotelera Internacional judgment in support of its contention that application of the Community provisions must be determined by reference to the principal object of the contract as defined, inter alia and not exclusively, by the financial value of the activities concerned because to do otherwise would lead to the exclusion of mixed contracts with a value in excess of the thresholds laid down in Directives 92/50 and 93/36 but,
Komisija, ki se opira na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Gestión Hotelera Internacional, trdi, da mora biti pravna ureditev, ki se uporablja, odvisna od glavnega predmeta naročila, ki ga poleg drugih dejavnikov in ne izključno opredeljuje vrednost storitev, saj bi sicer izključili me�ana naročila, katerih ocenjena vrednost je vi�ja od pragov iz direktiv 92/50 in 93/36,
COMMISSION v ITALY simply because the works, although ancillary, constitute the predominant component of the price, below the thresholds fixed in Directive 93/37.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI vendar nižja od pragov iz Direktive 93/37, samo zato, ker dela, čeprav dodatna, predstavljajo večji del cene.
It is clear from those considerations that the Directives preclude the value of the works from being, in all cases, the criterion which determines the legal provisions applicable to mixed contracts because, otherwise, contracts whose primary purpose is services or supply might be excluded from the scope of the Community legislation merely by reason of the lower value of their primary obligations.
Ob upo�tevanju teh pojasnil se zdi očitno, da direktive preprečujejo, da bi bila vrednost gradnje v vseh okoli�činah merilo, ki bi določalo pravno ureditev me�anih naročil, saj v tem primeru za naročila, katerih glavni predmet so storitve ali blago, zaradi nižje vrednosti glavnih obveznosti ne bi veljala pravila Skupnosti.
The Directives refer to the object of the contract but do not confuse it with either the aim or the activities entailed, 50even though the latter define the object. In addition, where there is more than one object, the Directives classify them by reference to the value of the activities concerned, because the Directives define their scope in terms of easily ascertainable financial amounts.
Direktive se sklicujejo na predmet pogodbe, ne da bi ga zamenjevale z vzrokom ali s storitvami, ki jih vključuje 50, čeprav ga te opredeljujejo, in če je predmetov več, te razvr�čajo glede na vrednost storitev, ker direktive omejujejo svoje področje uporabe s finančnimi pragovi, ki jih je lahko opredeliti.
In my opinion, for the reasons set out, the amendments cited cannot be taken into account. Furthermore, as the Commission states in the reply, a circular lacks the authority to override a legal provision and is not sufficient evidence to deny the existence of an infringement, because, as the Court has held, ‘[m]ere administrative practices, which by their nature are alterable at will by the authorities and are not given appropriate publicity, cannot be regarded as constituting the proper fulfilment of a Member State’s obligations flowing from Community law’. 49
Zaradi zgoraj navedenih razlogov menim, da ni treba upo�tevati zadevnih sprememb; �e več, kot se zatrjuje v repliki, okrožnica ne more razveljaviti zakonske določbe in ne more zadostovati za izpodbijanje kr�itve, ker po mnenju Sodi�ča „upravna praksa, ki jo lahko pristojni organi spreminjajo po svoji volji in s katero javnost ni ustrezno seznanjena, ne more pomeniti ustreznega izpolnjevanja obveznosti v skladu s Pogodbo ES“. 49
48 — Circular No B1/2316 of 18 December 2003, GURI No 79 of 3 April 2004.
48 – Okrožnica �t. B1/2316 z dne 18. decembra 2003, GURI �t.
It is not appropriate to carry out an a contrario interpretation or, as the Italian provisions do, to have regard to the value of ancillary works, and, for the reasons stated, I consider that the claim of infringement is well-founded.
Razlage ni mogoče spremeniti niti ni mogoče, kot pri italijanskih določbah, dati prednosti finančnemu vidiku dodatnih storitev; posledično je treba neizpolnitev obveznosti �teti za utemeljeno v delu, ki se nana�a na to vpra�anje.
49 — Judgments in Case C-80/92 Commission v Belgium [1994] ECR I-1019, paragraph 20; Case C-151/94 Commission v Luxembourg [1995] ECR I-3685, paragraph 18; Case C-159/99 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-4007, paragraph 32; Case C-394/00 Commission v Ireland [2002] ECR I-581, paragraph 11; Case C-415/01 Commission v Belgium [2003] ECR I-2081, paragraph 21; and Case C-296/01 Commission v France [2003] ECR I-13909, paragraph 54.
50 – Generalni pravobranilec Lenz je v točki 37 sklepnih predlogov v zadevi Gestión Hotelera Internacional poudaril, da glavna in neprenosljiva obveznost ni glavni predmet naročila.
C — Urban development works tero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti 51and a circular from the Dipartimento per
Drugič, misel, da se je treba v fazi prenosa sklicevati na vsako določbo Pogodbe in sodno prakso Sodi�ča, se ji zdi pretirana.
Works carried out by private persons (a) which are deductible from charges arising from building permits, (b) which require the assumption of certain legal obligations, and (c) which are analogous to the works in the first two categories, are not required to comply with Law No 109/94.
Gradenj, ki jih izvajajo posamezniki: a) od katerih se odbijejo prispevki, povezani z dovoljenji za izvajanje gradbenih dejavnosti; b) pri izpolnjevanju določenih zakonskih obveznosti in c) podobnih gradnjam iz prej�njih dveh skupin; ne ureja zakon �t.
However, if the value of the activities, assessed on an individual basis, exceeds the Community thresholds, such contracts are awarded in accordance with Directive 93/37 (Article 2(5) of the Law No 109/94).
109/94, vendar če vrednost del, ki se obravnavajo individualno, presega pragove Skupnosti, se ta dodelijo v skladu z Direktivo 93/37 (člen 2(5) zakona �t. 109/94).
The principles of transparency and equal treatment
preglednosti in enakega
Second, the Commission submits that the determination of whether the threshold has been attained must take account of all the activities covered by the contract, rather than just one of them.
Na drugi strani meni, da je treba za ugotovitev, ali je prag dosežen, oceniti vsa dela, predvidena z naročilom, in ne samo nekatera od teh del.
The Italian Government strenuously denies that the Italian legislation gives rise to the infringement complained of.
Italijanska vlada odločno zanika zatrjevano neizpolnitev obveznosti.
First, it has lodged a circular from the Minis-
Prvič, sklicuje se na okrožnico ministrstva za infrastrukture
COMMISSION v ITALY to comply with the principles of transparency and equality cannot be upheld. The flexible nature of those principles means that the assessment as to whether they have been infringed must be based on the circumstances of each award of a contract.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI splo�na omemba obveznosti spo�tovanja načel preglednosti in enakega obravnavanja; ob upo�tevanju njihove prilagodljivosti je ugotovitev njihove kr�itve odvisna od okoli�čin vsake oddaje naročila.
As I have pointed out, the Italian Government draws attention to the special nature of urban development works and the characteristics of the contested procurement procedure but fails to take account of the fact that the procedure at issue in the present proceedings must be assessed pursuant to the Directives on public contracts.
Kot sem navedel zgoraj, italijanska vlada poudarja posebnosti urbanističnega sektorja in značilnosti zadevnega sistema oddaje naročil, vendar pozablja, da je treba navedeni sistem preučiti z vidika direktiv o javnih naročilih.
Placing the emphasis on one legal sphere — the national one — while ignoring the other sphere — the Community one — causes the situation to become distorted.
Če poudarimo enega od pravnih vidikov – nacionalno raven – in zanemarimo drugo – raven Skupnosti –, je položaj izkrivljen.
Moreover, as I have already observed, in Ordine degli Architetti and Others, the Court held that the special nature of urban development works is not sufficient to exclude the application of the Directives (paragraph 66).
Poleg tega sem že poudaril, da v skladu s sodbo Ordine degli Architetti in drugi posebnosti urbanističnega področja ne zadostujejo za izključitev uporabe direktiv (točka 66).
The scope of the Italian legislation
Področje uporabe italijanske zakonodaje
Article 1 of Directive 93/37 provides definitions of ‘public works contracts’ (para-
V členu 1 Direktive 93/37 je navedeno,
The other complaint in the application concerning the award of works contracts to the holder of a building permit or development plan relates to the fact that the procurement procedures concerned must be followed in all cases where an agreement between a contracting authority and a private person covers works whose value, assessed individually, is in excess of the Community thresholds.
Drugi očitek, izražen v tožbi v zvezi z dodeljevanjem naročil za dela imetniku gradbenega dovoljenja ali načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, zadeva dejstvo, da se postopki javnega razpisa uporabljajo samo, če se dogovor med upravo in posameznikom nana�a na dela, katerih ocenjene vrednosti, ki se obravnavajo individualno, presegajo pragove Skupnosti.
54 — ‘[C]ontracts for pecuniary interest concluded in writing between a contractor and a contracting authority as defined in (b), which have as their object either the execution, or both the execution and design, of works related to one of the activities referred to in Annex II or a work defined in (c) below, or the execution, by whatever means, of a work corresponding to the requirements specified by the contracting authority’.
54 – Gre za „odplačne in pisno sklenjene pogodbe med izvajalcem in naročnikom, kakor je opredeljen v (b), katerih predmet je izvedba ali oboje – izvedba in projektiranje gradenj, povezanih z eno od dejavnosti iz Priloge II, ali gradnja, opredeljena v (c) spodaj, ali izvedba neke gradnje, ne glede na način, ki ustreza zahtevam naročnika“.
55 — ‘[T]he outcome of building or civil engineering works taken as a whole that is sufficient of itself to fulfil an economic and technical function’.
55 – „[Z]aključen[a] visok[a] ali nizk[a] gradnj[a], gradnj[a] kot celot[a], ki je samozadostna, da izpolnjuje svojo gospodarsko in tehnično funkcijo“.
56 — Similar provisions are contained in Article 7 of the Directive, Article 5 of Directive 93/36, Article 14 of Directive 93/38 and Article 9 of Directive 2004/18, concerning the Methods for calculating the estimated value of public contracts, framework agreements and dynamic purchasing systems.
56 – Podobne določbe so navedene v členu 7 te direktive, členu 5 Direktive 93/36, členu 14 Direktive 93/38 in členu 9 Direktive 2004/18, naslovljenem „Metode za izračun ocenjene vrednosti javnih naročil, okvirnih sporazumov in dinamičnih nabavnih sistemov“.
The Commission claims that that rule is contrary to Directive 93/37, because it leads to the exclusion of contracts whose total value exceeds the thresholds, on the grounds that the individual cost of each component operation is below that threshold.
Po mnenju Komisije naj bi bilo to pravilo v nasprotju z Direktivo 93/37, saj je njegova posledica izključitev naročil, katerih skupna vrednost je vi�ja od pragov, ker vrednosti vsake od storitev, ki jih vključujejo naročila, niso zadostne.
In addition, Directive 93/37 defines the term ‘a work’, the existence of which, pursuant to the judgment in Commission v France, 61 must be assessed in the light of the economic and technical function of the result of the works concerned (paragraph 36).
Poleg tega Direktiva 93/37 natančno določa pojem „gradnja“, katerega obstoj je treba v skladu s sodbo z dne 5. oktobra 2000 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji 61 presojati z vidika gospodarske in tehnične funkcije izida zadevnih del (točka 36).
The total value obtained, where appropriate, by adding together lots, determines whether the Community provisions apply and, as I have already indicated, the particular features of urban development works cannot serve as objective grounds to justify splitting up a contract.
Skupna vrednost, ki se po potrebi dobi s se�tevanjem sklopov, določa pravno ureditev, ki se uporablja, ne da bi, kot sem navedel zgoraj, posebnosti urbanističnega sektorja lahko služile kot objektivni izgovor, s katerim bi upravičili razdelitev naročila.
Thus, those provisions supply definitions and rules which must be interpreted in accordance with Community law, 57and that is appropriate context in which to view the judgment in Ordine degli Architetti and Others, pursuant to which Directive 93/37 must be applied to cases where ‘the holder of a building permit or approved development plan’ executes ‘infrastructure works directly, by way of total or partial set-off against the contribution payable in respect of the grant of the permit … where the value of that work is the same as or exceeds the ceiling fixed by the Directive’.
Tako razpolagamo s pojmi in pravili, ki jih je treba pojasniti z vidika prava Skupnosti 57, v okvir katerega je treba postaviti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Ordine degli Architetti in drugi, po kateri se mora za „neposredno izvedbo urbanističnih del s strani imetnika gradbenega dovoljenja ali odobrenega načrta razdelitve zemlji�ča, ki se v celoti ali deloma odbijejo od prispevka, dolgovanega iz naslova dodelitve dovoljenja“, uporabljati Direktiva 93/37, „če je vrednost tega dela enaka ali presega prag“, določen z Direktivo.
However, that judgment must be qualified because public works which entail urban development works may be executed directly by the contracting authority or by a third party in accordance with the law or an agreement, in which case there is a contract governed by Community law 58and the holder of a building permit or development plan, acting as the alter ego of the contracting authority, 59is bound by the same requirements of publicity and competition. 60
Vendar je treba to trditev popraviti, ker javne gradnje, ki vključujejo urbanistična dela, neposredno izvede uprava ali tudi tretja oseba na podlagi zakona ali konvencije, v tem primeru obstaja pogodba, ki jo urejajo predpisi Skupnosti 58, in ker za lastnika, ki deluje kot alter ego uprave 59, veljajo iste zahteve o ogla�evanju in konkurenci 60.