natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
by Article 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which include the confidentiality of private, and in some circumstances business, correspondence, 25may pursuant to Article 8(2) be restricted, where necessary and in accordance with the law, in order, inter alia, to protect the rights of others.
konvencije o človekovih pravicah, ki vključujejo zaupnost zasebnega, in v nekaterih okoli�činah poslovnega, dopisovanja, 25je mogoče na podlagi člena 8(2) omejiti, če je to potrebno in v skladu z zakonom, da bi inter alia za�čitili pravice drugih.
Moreover, where confidentiality is protected at the award stage of a procurement procedure, that protection would be liable to lose all value if it were not ensured equally at any subsequent review stage.
Poleg tega, če je zaupnost varovana na stopnji oddaje javnega naročila, bi lahko tako varstvo izgubilo vsako vrednost, če ne bi bilo na enak način zagotovljeno na vsaki nadaljnji stopnji revizije.
Reconciling the conflicting interests
Uskladitev nasprotujočih si interesov
To adapt the words of the Court in AKZO Chemie, 24a failure to protect infor-
V skladu z dikcijo Sodi�ča v sodbi AKZO Chemie 24 bi pomanjkanje varstva podatkov,
It is evident that conflicts are likely to arise between the right to confidential treatment of business secrets, the need for transparency in the field of public procurement, the duty of review bodies to ensure effective review and the right of all parties to a fair hearing.
Očitno je, da lahko nastanejo razhajanja med pravico do zaupne obravnave poslovnih skrivnosti, zahtevo po preglednosti na področju javnih naročil, obveznostjo revizijskih organov, da zagotovijo učinkovito revizijo, in pravico vseh strank do po�tenega sojenja.
mation submitted as confidential at the award stage of such a procedure would lead to the unacceptable consequence that an unsuccessful tenderer might be inspired to challenge an award — or even to submit a tender manifestly doomed to rejection, with a view to being entitled to challenge the award — solely in order to gain access to a competitor’s business secrets.
ki so v takem postopku kot zaupni predloženi na stopnji oddaje javnega naročila, vodilo do nesprejemljive posledice, ki bi lahko neuspe�nega ponudnika spodbudila k izpodbijanju oddaje naročila – ali k predložitvi ponudbe, ki je očitno obsojena na zavrnitev, da bi lahko izpodbijal oddajo naročila – le zato, da bi dobil dostop do poslovnih skrivnosti konkurenta.
However, as with the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence, the right to confidential treatment of information is not absolute.
Vendar tako kot upravičenje do razkritja upo�tevnih dokazov tudi pravica do zaupne obravnave podatkov ni absolutna.
For example, the rights conferred
Na primer, pravice, določene v členu 8(1) Evropske
To the extent possible, those interests should obviously be reconciled, although it will not always be feasible to reconcile them fully.
Te interese je treba seveda v največji možni meri uskladiti, čeprav tega vedno v celoti ne bo mogoče storiti.
In particular, it will in some cases be necessary to restrict one party’s right — to require confidential treatment of business secrets or to have access to all the evidence
V določenih primerih bo treba zlasti omejiti pravico stranke, dazahteva zaupno obravnavo poslovnih skrivnosti ali dostop do vseh dokazov v spisu, da se ne bo posegalo v samo vsebino ali bistvo pravice druge stranke ali pooblastilo in dolžnost sodi�ča, da zagotovi
25 — See footnote 12 above.
25 – Glej opombo 12 zgoraj.
However, any restriction must not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose, and a fair balance must be struck between the conflicting rights.
Vendar omejitev ne sme preseči tistega, kar je nujno za zasledovanje tega cilja, in treba je spo�tovati pravično ravnotežje med nasprotujočimi si pravicami. 26 bi upo�tevali.
Where rights are not absolute, 27they must be considered in relation to their function.
Če te pravice ne veljajo absolutno, 27jih je treba obravnavati glede na njihov namen.
Restrictions may be imposed, provided that they meet objectives of general interest and do not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference impairing the very substance of the rights. 28
Omejitve so dovoljene, če izpolnjujejo cilje splo�nega interesa in ne pomenijo nesorazmernega in netolerantnega poseganja, ki bi �kodilo sami vsebini teh pravic. 28
A reasonable and pragmatic solution could be for the review body to request the party holding the evidence to provide an edited version which could be made available to the other party or parties — subject to the review body’s own supervision in order to ensure that only genuinely confidential elements which do not appear decisive to the resolution of the dispute are edited out.
Razumna in pragmatična re�itev za revizijski organ bi bila, da bi od stranke, ki ima dokaze, zahteval, naj jih predloži v različici, ki ni zaupne narave in bi bila lahko na voljo drugi stranki ali strankam – pri čemer bi revizijski organ sam preveril, ali so izpu�čeni zares le zaupni elementi, ki niso odločilni za re�itev spora.
In that case, even if the review body has seen evidence concealed from certain parties, it should endeavour not to use that evidence in any way which could infringe those parties’ rights to a fair hearing and to equality of arms.
V takem primeru si mora revizijski organ, tudi če je videl dokaze, ki določenim strankam niso bili razkriti, prizadevati, da teh dokazov ne uporabi na kakr�en koli način, ki bi lahko posegal v pravice teh strank do po�tenega sojenja in enakosti orožja.
In award review proceedings of the kind in issue in the present case, the review body could first examine any disputed evidence itself and then place on the file accessible to all the principal parties only such evidence as it judges relevant to deciding the case before it. Evidence which is not placed on the file should not be taken into account.
V tak�nih revizijskih postopkih na področju javnih naročil, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, bi lahko revizijski organ najprej sam preveril sporne dokaze in nato v spis, dostopen vsem glavnim strankam, vložil le tiste dokaze, za katere bi presodil, da so upo�tevni za odločitev v zadevi, ki jo obravnava.
Some evidence might however be placed on the file
Dokazi, ki niso vloženi v spis, se naj ne
An illustration
Ponazoritev
26 — See, for example, in the context of a clash between different rights, Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, paragraphs 77 to 81.
26 – Glej na primer – v okviru razhajanj med različnimi pravicami – sodbo z dne 12. junija 2003 v zadevi Schmidberger (C-112/00, Recueil, str. I-5659), točke od 77 do 81.
27 — See points 39 and 46 above.
27 – Glej točki 39 in 46 zgoraj.
An example of that type of approach may be seen in the ‘Steel Beams’ cases before
Tako vrsto pristopa bi lahko ponazarjala sodba v zadevah Steel Beams pred Sodi-
VAREC ality in Article 47 of the ECSC Treaty, 30so that not all of them should be accessible in their entirety to all the parties.
VAREC člena 47 ESPJ, 30tako da dostop vseh strank do celotnega spisa ni mogoč.
Some of the applicants, however, sought to have access to the whole file.
Nekatere tožeče stranke so vendarle želele dostop do celotnega spisa.
the Court of First Instance.
�čem prve stopnje.
29In March and April 1994, 11 undertakings brought actions for the annulment of a Commission decision under the ECSC Treaty concerning concerted practices by producers of steel beams.
2911 podjetij je marca in aprila 1994 vložilo tožbe na razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Komisije, ki jo je ta sprejela na podlagi Pogodbe ESPJ glede usklajenih ravnanj proizvajalcev jeklenih tramov.
The actions were dealt with together and, for part of the procedure, joined.
Tožbe so se obravnavale skupaj in bile za del postopka združene.
At that time, the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance dealt with confidentiality only in Article 116(2), which allowed confidential documents to be omitted from the casefile communicated to an intervener.
V tistem času je bila zaupnost v Statutu Sodi�ča prve stopnje določena le v členu 116(2), ki je dopu�čal, da so se zaupni dokumenti izločili iz spisovnega gradiva, posredovanega intervenientu.
Under Article 5(3) of the Instructions to the Registrar, however, parties’ lawyers or agents, or persons authorised by them, were entitled to inspect the original case-file, including administrative files produced before the Court, and to request copies or extracts of documents.
V skladu s členom 5(3) Navodil sodnemu tajniku pa so imeli odvetniki, ali zastopniki strank, ali osebe, ki so jih te pooblastile, pravico pregledati originalno spisovno gradivo, vključno z upravnimi spisi, predloženimi Sodi�ču, in zahtevati kopije ali povzetke dokumentov.
The Court of First Instance was thus faced with problems very similar to those now facing the Conseil d’État.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je tako soočilo s problemi, ki so bili zelo podobni tem, s katerimi se sedaj sooča Conseil d’État.
The Commission did not however lodge all the documents until requested to do so by the Court of First Instance.
Komisija pa ni predložila vseh dokumentov, dokler ji tega ni odredilo Sodi�če prve stopnje.
In its covering letter, it stated that some of the documents might contain business secrets or that they fell under the obligation of confidenti-
V svojem spremljevalnem dopisu je navedla, da lahko nekateri dokumenti vsebujejo poslovne skrivnosti ali da lahko zanje velja obveznost zaupnosti iz
In the first of its three orders addressing those problems, that Court rejected the argument that Article 23 of the ECSC Statute, together with the principle audi alteram
V prvem izmed treh sklepov, ki se nana�ajo na ta vpra�anja, je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo trditev, da je člen 23 statuta ESPJ, skupaj z načelom audi alteram partem,
30 — The second paragraph of which prohibited the Commission from disclosing ‘information of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy, in particular about undertakings, their business relations or their cost components’.
30 – Drugi odstavek je Komisiji prepovedoval razkritje „informacij, za katere velja obveznost varovanja poslovne skrivnosti, zlasti informacij o podjetjih, njihovih poslovnih odnosih ali sestavinah stro�kov“.
29 — Case T-134/94 NMH Stahlwerke v Commission [1999] ECR II-239; Case T-136/94 Eurofer v Commission [1999] ECR II-263; Case T-137/94 ARBED v Commission [1999] ECR II-303; Case T-138/94 Cockerill-Sambre v Commission [1999] ECR II-333; Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission [1999] ECR II-347; Case T-145/94 Unimétal v Commission [1999] ECR II-585; Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch v Commission [1999] ECR II-603; Case T-148/94 Preussag Stahl v Commission [1999] ECR II-613; Case T-151/94 British Steel v Commission [1999] ECR II-629; Case T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission [1999] ECR II-645; and Case T-157/94 Ensidesa v Commission [1999] ECR II-707.
29 – Sodbe z dne 11. marca 1999 v združenih zadevah NMH Stahlwerke in drugi proti Komisiji, (T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 in T-157/94, Recueil, str. II-239 in naslednje).
32 It also distinguished the documents transmitted pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute from the casefile constituted in accordance with the Instructions to the Registrar.
31 pregledovanje spisov po svoji volji“. 32Prav tako je razlikovalo med dokumenti, posredovanimi na podlagi člena 23 statuta, in spisovnim gradivom, sestavljenim v skladu z Navodili sodnega tajnika.
The parties had access only to the latter, which contained the documents to be taken into consideration in deciding the case.
Stranke so imele dostop le do zadnjega, ki je vseboval dokumente, ki naj bi jih bilo treba upo�tevati pri odločanju zadeve.
Documents transmitted to the Court but not placed in the casefile remained ‘wholly extraneous to the proceedings’ and would not be taken into consideration by the Court in deciding the case.
Dokumenti, posredovani Sodi�ču prve stopnje, ki pa niso bili vloženi v spisovno gradivo, so ostali „popolnoma nepomembni za postopek“ in naj jih Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi upo�tevalo pri odločanju v zadevi.
33On that basis, it examined the documents in question in the light of the submissions and decided that some were relevant and should be placed on the casefile and communicated to the parties.
33Na tej podlagi je obravnavalo zadevne dokumente glede na stali�ča in odločilo, da so nekateri upo�tevni in bi jih bilo treba vložiti v spisovno gradivo in posredovati strankam.
In a third and final order, it examined two further documents and decided that one of them should be placed on the file.
V tretjem in zadnjem sklepu je obravnavalo dva dodatna dokumenta in odločilo, da je treba enega izmed njih vložiti v spisovno gradivo. 34
Thus, in a situation of possible conflict between a need to consider all the relevant evidence, a need to allow all parties access to that evidence and a need to protect the confi-
Tako je bilo glede na morebitno razhajanje med potrebo po presoji vseh upo�tevnih dokazov, potrebo dopustiti vsem strankam dostop do teh dokazov in potrebo po
In a second order made after receiving that information and hearing further argument, the Court of First Instance made it clear that the purpose of Article 23 of the Statute was to ‘enable the Court to exercise its power of review of the legality of the contested decision, having regard to the rights of the defence’, and not to ‘guarantee all the parties unconditional and unrestricted access to the administrative file’ or to ‘enable the applicants to peruse the files of the
V drugem sklepu je Sodi�če prve stopnje, po tem, ko je prejelo te podatke in zasli�alo stranke, pojasnilo, da je bil namen člena 23 statuta „Sodi�ču omogočiti izvr�evanje pristojnosti nadzora zakonitosti izpodbijane odločbe, glede na pravice obrambe“, in ne „vsem strankam zagotoviti brezpogojen in neomejen dostop do upravnega spisa“ oziroma „tožečim strankam omogočiti
32 — Order in Cases T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 and T-157/94 NMH Stahlwerke and Others v Commission [1997] ECR II-2293, paragraphs 32 and 37.
32 – Sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. decembra 1997 v združenih zadevah NMH Stahlwerke in drugi proti Komisiji (T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 in T-157/94, Recueil, str. II-2293), točki 32 in 37.
33 — Ibid., paragraph 33.
33 – Prav tam, točka 33.
31 — Order in Cases T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 and T-157/94 NMH Stahlwerke and Others v Commission [1996] ECR II-537, especially at paragraphs 12 to 15 and the operative part.
31 – Sklep Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. decembra 1997 v združenih zadevah NMH Stahlwerke in drugi proti Komisiji (T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 in T-157/94, Recueil, str. II-537), zlasti točke od 12 do 15 in izrek.
34 — Order of 16 February 1998 in Joined Cases T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 and T-157/94 NMH Stahlwerke and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR.
34 – Sodba z dne 16. februarja 1998 v združenih zadevah NMH Stahlwerke in drugi proti Komisiji (T-134/94, T-136/94, T-137/94, T-138/94, T-141/94, T-145/94, T-147/94, T-148/94, T-151/94, T-156/94 in T-157/94, Recueil, str. II- 707).
VAREC those Rules of Procedure can constitute any binding precedent for a national court, I consider that they provide helpful, practical guidance as to the approach to be taken, which must conform with the rules applicable to that court, in so far as they do not conflict with any higher norm.
VAREC vrednosti, menim, da pomenita koristen in praktičen odgovor glede stali�ča, ki ga je treba zavzeti, ki mora biti v skladu s pravili, ki jih uporablja zadevno sodi�če, če nista v nasprotju s hierarhično vi�jo normo.
dentiality of some of it, the approach taken by the Court of First Instance was (a) to screen the evidence itself at a preliminary stage, (b) to include only the relevant evidence in the case-file, (c) to make all that evidence available to all the parties, subject to the ‘masking’ of certain details of certain documents vis-à-vis certain parties, and (d) to take into consideration only the evidence in the casefile to which the parties had access.
varstvu zaupnosti nekaterih izmed njih, stali�če Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da (a) samo preizkusi dokaze v predhodnem postopku, (b) v spisovno gradivo vključi le upo�tevne dokaze, (c) da vse dokaze na voljo vsem strankam, pri čemer nekatere podrobnosti določenih dokumentov določenim strankam „prikrije“, in (d) upo�teva le dokaze v spisovnem gradivu, do katerih so imele stranke dostop.
That solution was adopted, pragmatically and with due regard to each of the interests at stake, in a regulatory context similar to that facing the Conseil d’État in the main proceedings.
Ta re�itev je bila pragmatično in ob dolžnem spo�tovanju vsakega zadevnega interesa sprejeta v zakonskem okviru, ki je podoben temu, s katerim se je soočilo Conseil d’État v postopku v glavni stvari.
It was subsequently enshrined in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. 35
Pozneje je bil kodificiran v Poslovniku Sodi�ča prve stopnje. 35
Conclusions to be drawn
Ugotovitve
As regards review bodies functioning in conformity with Directive 89/665, such higher norms include those which flow from that directive and from Directive 93/36 (or now Directive 2004/18), both as interpreted in the light of the right to the protection of business secrets and the right to a fair hearing.
Glede revizijskih organov, ki delujejo v skladu z Direktivo 89/665, tak�ne hierarhično vi�je norme vključujejo norme, ki izhajajo iz te direktive in Direktive 93/36 (oziroma sedaj Direktive 2004/18), pri čemer se obe razlagata glede na pravico do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti in pravico do po�tenega sojenja.
The principles to be applied are the following: (a) a party may not refuse to communicate evidence to the review body on the ground of business secrecy; (b) a party communicating evidence to the review body may ask for it to be treated as confidential, in whole or in part, vis-à-vis another party; (c) all principal parties should have access to all evidence relevant to the outcome of the review, in a form adequate to enable them to comment on it; (d) the review body should take care not to use any evidence withheld from one or more principal parties in any way which could infringe those parties’ rights to a fair hearing and to equality of arms.
Načela, ki veljajo, so naslednja: (a) stranka ne sme zavrniti posredovanja dokazov revizijskemu organu na podlagi poslovne skrivnosti; (b) stranka, ki revizijskemu organu posreduje dokaze, lahko prosi, da se kot celota ali deloma nasproti drugi stranki obravnavajo kot zaupni; (c) vse glavne stranke morajo imeti dostop do vseh dokazov, ki so upo�tevni za rezultat revizije, v obliki, ki jim omogoča, da podajo svoja stali�ča; (d) revizijski organ mora paziti, da ne uporabi dokazov, ki niso bili razkriti eni ali več glavnim strankam, na način, ki bi lahko posegal v pravice teh strank do po�tenega sojenja in enakosti orožja.
Although neither that pragmatic solution nor, a fortiori, the rule laid down in
Čeprav niti ta pragmatična re�itev niti, a fortiori, pravilo iz tega Poslovnika za nacionalno sodi�če nima zavezujoče pravne
The assessment can only be on a case-by-case basis, and must seek to assure the
35 – Člen 67(3), dodan 19. decembra 2000 (UL 2000, L 322, str. 4).
Final remarks have already taken an approach consistent with that which I have outlined above.
�čih sklicevala belgijska vlada, 37že zavzelo stali�če, skladno s tistim, ki sem ga navedla zgoraj.
The case concerned an undertaking’s challenge to a decision granting registration of a competitor’s medicinal product.
Zadeva se je nana�ala na tožbo podjeta zoper odločbo o registraciji farmacevtskega proizvoda konkurenta.
The administrative authority lodged two versions of its file with the Conseil d’État — a version containing confidential documents relating to the medicinal product and a nonconfidential version.
Upravni organ je pri Conseil d’État vložil dve različici svojega spisa – različico, ki je vsebovala zaupne dokumente glede farmacevtskega proizvoda, in različico nezaupne narave.
The auditeur in his report examined the issue and concluded that the confidential documents should not be available to the applicant.
Auditeur je v svojem poročilu preučil vpra�anje in sklenil, da zaupni dokumenti ne smejo biti na voljo tožeči stranki.
The court decided that it was not necessary to rule on that question, since the application could be conclusively dismissed on a ground which did not involve examination of those documents.
Sodi�če je odločilo, da o tem vpra�anju ni bilo potrebno odločati, ker bi bilo tožbo mogoče naknadno zavrniti, zaradi razloga, ki ni vključeval pregleda teh dokumentov.
First, it seems clear that when Article 11 of the Law of 15 June 2006 36enters into force, the obligation to protect the confidentiality of business secrets in review proceedings will be explicit in Belgium.
Prvič, dejstvo je, da bo obveznost varstva zaupnosti poslovne skrivnosti v revizijskih postopkih, ko bo začel veljati člen 11 zakona z dne 15. junija 2006 36, postala v Belgiji izrecna.
Second, I note that, in a case referred to by the Belgian Government in its observations, 37 the Conseil d’État appears to
Drugič, opozarjam, da naj bi Conseil d’État v zadevi, na katero se je v svojih stali-
37 — Case 137.993; report of Auditeur Stevens of 22 October 2004, point 3; judgment of the Conseil d’État (or Raad van State, since it was a Dutch-language case) of 3 December 2004, point 1.2.
37 – Zadeva 137.993; poročilo Auditeur Stevens z dne 22. oktobra 2004, točka 3; sodba Conseil d’État z dne 3. decembra 2004, točka 1.2.
VAREC actual circumstances, be a factor to be taken into account when deciding whether and to what extent to accord confidential treatment.
VAREC revizijskega postopka. Če je tako, bi bil lahko dejavnik, ki bi ga bilo treba glede na dejanske okoli�čine upo�tevati pri odločanju glede vpra�anja, ali in v kolik�ni meri je treba
Finally, it appears from the order for reference that Varec may in fact already have had access to at least some of the disputed elements of the file, apparently outside the strict context of the award or review proceedings. If that is so, it might, depending on the
Nazadnje, iz predložitvenega sklepa izhaja, da naj bi družba Varec dejansko imela dostop do vsaj nekaterih spornih elementov iz spisovnega gradiva, očitno zunaj strogega okvira postopka oddaje naročila oziroma zadevo obravnavati zaupno.
In the light of all the above considerations, I am of the opinion that the Court should give the following reply to the question raised by the Conseil d’État:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno menim, da mora Sodi�če na vpra�anje Conseil d’État odgovoriti naslednje:
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665, read in conjunction with the provisions of Council Directive 93/36 relating to the protection of confidential information, requires a review body
Člen 1(1) Direktive Sveta 89/665, v povezavi z določbami Direktive Sveta 93/36 glede varstva zaupnih podatkov zahteva, naj revizijski organ
(a) to take cognisance of the whole of the administrative file and other evidence on which the contracting authority based its award and
(a) pozna celotni upravni spis in druge dokaze, na katerih je naročnik utemeljil oddajo naročila, in
(b) to accord confidential information the same protection as is accorded to it at the award stage.
(b) zaupnim podatkom daje enako za�čito, kot jo imajo ti v postopku oddaje naročila.
Those obligations must be carried out subject to the right to a fair hearing and to equality of arms, which implies in particular that the review body should take care not to use any evidence withheld from one or more principal parties in any way which could infringe those rights.
Te obveznosti je treba izvr�iti ob upo�tevanju pravice do po�tenega sojenja in enakosti orožja, kar zlasti pomeni, da mora revizijski organ paziti, da ne uporabi kak�nega dokaza, ki eni ali več glavnim strankam ni bil razkrit, na način, ki bi lahko posegal v te pravice.