natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that context, the second paragraph of Article 90 EC is intended to prevent any form of indirect fiscal protectionism affecting imported products which, although not similar, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, to domestic products, nevertheless compete with some of them, even if only partially, indirectly or potentially (Commission v Belgium, paragraph 7, and Joined Cases C-367/93 to C-377/93 Roders and Others [1995] ECR I-2229, paragraph 38).
S tega vidika je člen 90, drugi odstavek, ES namenjen prepovedi kakr�nega koli posrednega davčnega protekcionizma v primeru uvoženih proizvodov, ki so – čeprav niso podobni nacionalnim proizvodom – v smislu prvega odstavka z nekaterimi od njih v konkurenci, tudi delni, posredni ali potencialni (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Belgiji, točka 7, in sodba z dne 11. avgusta 1995 v zdruŽenih zadevah Roders in drugi, od C-367/93 do C-377/93, Recueil, str. I-2229, točka 38).
Consequently, for the purposes of examining the compatibility with the second paragraph of Article 90 EC of the taxation arrangements criticised by the Commission, it is appropriate first to determine the extent to which beer and wine may be regarded as competing products in the light of that provision.
Zato bi bilo treba za Komisijin preizkus sporne skladnosti davčne ureditve s členom 90, drugi odstavek, ES najprej pojasniti, v katerem primeru se lahko pivo in vino �tejeta za konkurenčna proizvoda glede na to določbo.
It is clear from the caselaw that wine and beer are, to a certain extent, capable of meeting identical needs, which means that a certain measure of mutual substitutability must be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the Court has pointed out that, in view of the significant differences in quality — and, accordingly, in price — between wines, the decisive competitive relationship between wine and beer, a popular and widely consumed beverage, must be established by reference to those wines which are the most accessible to the public at large, that is to say, generally speaking, the lightest and least expensive varieties, and it is therefore on that basis that tax comparisons must be made (Commission v Belgium, paragraph 10 and the caselaw cited).
Iz sodne prakse izhaja, da proizvoda vino in pivo v določeni meri zadovoljita iste potrebe, tako da je med njima treba priznati določeno stopnjo zamenljivosti, vendar pa je Sodi�če pojasnilo, da je treba ob upo�tevanju velikih razlik v kakovosti in ceni med različnimi vini odločilno konkurenčno razmerje med pivom, priljubljeno pijačo �iroke potro�nje, in vinom ugotoviti z vini, ki so najbolj dostopna �ir�i javnosti, ki so navadno manj močna in cenej�a, in da je torej treba davčno primerjavo opraviti na tem temelju (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Belgiji, točka 10 in navedena sodna praksa).
Those considerations are also valid in the context of the present case, since the evidence submitted to the Court discloses no special feature of the Swedish market which could justify a different assessment.
Te ugotovitve veljajo tudi za obravnavano zadevo, saj iz podatkov, predloženih Sodi�ču, ne izhaja nobena posebnost �vedskega trga, ki bi upravičevala drugačno presojo.
Consequently, it must be found that, in the present case, only wines in the intermediate category, which only Systembolaget can sell on a retail basis, share a sufficient number of characteristics with strong beer — with an alcoholic strength equal to or higher than 3.5% vol. and also available for retail sale only through Systembolaget — to be regarded as being in competition with strong beer for the purposes of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da imajo v obravnavnem primeru le vina srednjega razreda, ki jih lahko na drobno prodaja le Systembolaget, dovolj skupnih lastnosti z močnim pivom – z vsebnostjo alkohola, enako ali vi�jo od 3,5 vol. % alkohola, ki ga prav tako na drobno prodaja le Systembolaget – da lahko pomenijo možnost izbire za potro�nika, in zanje torej lahko �tejemo, da so v konkurenčnem razmerju z močnim pivom glede na člen 90, drugi odstavek, ES.
Secondly, it is appropriate to compare the taxation arrangements for the products at issue in order to determine whether there is any difference in the tax treatment applied to them and, if so, the extent of that difference.
Drugič, opraviti je treba primerjavo davčnih ureditev, ki veljajo za navedena proizvoda, za določitev morebitne razlike pri obdavčitvi, ki se uporablja zanju, in velikosti te razlike.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden disagree as to the relevance of the application, in the present case, of the methods of comparison used in Commission v United Kingdom and Commission v Belgium in order to assess the taxation relationship between beer and wine.
Komisija in Kraljevina Švedska se ne strinjata glede ustreznosti metod, ki so bile uporabljene v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu in Komisija proti Belgiji za presojo razmerja obdavčitve med pivom in vinom.
The Court considers that the most relevant comparison in the present case is between the excise duty applied to wine and the excise duty applied to beer, the rate of duty being determined in each case according to the alcoholic strength by volume of the beverage.
Sodi�če meni, da je v obravnavani zadevi najustreznej�a primerjava tro�arin glede na vsebnost alkohola teh pijač.
It should be noted, as the Advocate General points out in point 54 of his Opinion, that alcoholic strength is the most pertinent criterion of assessment in the present
Poudariti je namreč treba, kot je to storil generalni pravobranilec v točki 54 sklepnih predlogov, da je v obravnavani zadevi stopnja alkohola zagotovo ustreznej�e merilo,
2008 — CASE C-167/05 case, since it is used by Sweden as the tax base for determining excise duty.
2008 – ZADEVA C-167/05 ker se na Švedskem uporablja kot davčna osnova za določitev tro�arin.
In addition, it is an objective criterion which reflects the characteristics of the products in question.
Poleg tega gre za objektivno merilo, ki izraža značilnosti zadevnih proizvodov.
Under Paragraph 2 of the lagen om alkoholskatt, excise duty on beer is fixed, whereas, under Paragraph 3 of that law, excise duty on wine is progressive, varying according to the categories specified in the latter provision.
Na podlagi člena 2 zakona o tro�arinah za alkoholne pijače so tro�arine za pivo določene, medtem ko so v skladu s členom 3 tega zakona tro�arine za vino progresivne in se spreminjajo glede na razrede, določene v tej določbi.
It is common ground, moreover, that for both products the rate of VAT is 25% of the selling price, inclusive of excise duty.
Poleg tega ni sporno, da DDV za ta proizvoda zna�a 25 % prodajne cene, vključno s tro�arino.
Wine which is in competition with strong beer is therefore subject to higher taxation than strong beer.
Vino, ki je v konkurenci z močnim pivom, je torej bolj obdavčeno kot pivo.
Thirdly, it is appropriate to determine whether the higher taxation of wine as compared with strong beer is such as to have the effect, on the market in question, of reducing potential consumption of imported products to the advantage of competing domestic products (see Commission v Belgium, paragraph 15, and Roders and Others, paragraph 39).
Tretjič, preveriti je treba, ali to vi�je davčno breme za vino glede na močno pivo lahko vpliva na zadevni trg, z zmanj�anjem potencialne potro�nje uvoženih proizvodov v korist konkurenčnih nacionalnih proizvodov (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Belgiji, točka 15, in Roders in drugi, točka 39).
In that respect, account must be taken of the difference between the selling prices of the products in question and the impact of that difference on the consumer’s choice, as well as to changes in the consumption of those products (Roders and Others, paragraph 39).
V zvezi s tem je treba upo�tevati razliko med prodajno ceno zadevnih proizvodov in vplivom te razlike na izbiro potro�nika ter na razvoj potro�nje teh proizvodov (zgoraj navedena sodba Roders in drugi, točka 39).
To arrive at that assessment, a method of comparison finally accepted by both parties, based on a litre of beer and a litre of wine, must be used, since the Commission has failed to establish the relevance to the present case of any other method.
Za izvedbo te presoje je treba uporabiti primerjalno metodo, ki sta jo nazadnje sprejeli obe stranki, ki se nana�a na liter piva in liter vina, saj Komisija za obravnavano zadevo ni ugotovila ustreznosti druge metode.
In that regard, it must be held that, in the light of the information provided by the Commission and the Kingdom of Sweden, the relationship between the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of strong beer and that of a litre of wine in competition with it is in the order of 1 : 2.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je glede na podatke, ki sta jih predložili Komisija in Kraljevina Švedska, razmerje med končno prodajno ceno, vključno z vsemi davki, litra močnega piva in litra vina, ki je z njim v konkurenci, 1 proti 2.
As is apparent from the information provided to the Court, even supposing that excise duty as applicable per litre of strong beer — that is to say, SEK 1.47 per percent- age point of alcohol by volume — were to be applied to the wine in competition with strong beer (such as a wine with an alcoholic strength of 12.5% vol.), the reduction in the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of that wine would be SEK 4.63 (EUR 0.5) or 6.65%.
Kot izhaja iz podatkov – ki so bili predloženi Sodi�ču, tudi ob predpostavki, da se tro�arine, ki so določene za močno pivo, in sicer 1,47 SEK na volumensko odstotno enoto za liter, uporabijo za konkurenčno vino, kot je vino z 12,5 vol. % alkohola – bi bilo zmanj�anje prodajne cene, vključno z davki 4,63 SEK (0,5 EUR) oziroma 6,65 %.
Despite that reduction, the relationship between the final selling price, inclusive of all taxes, of a litre of strong beer and that of a litre of wine in competition with strong beer would remain in the order of 1 : 2.
Kljub temu zmanj�anju bi razmerje med končno prodajno ceno, vključno z vsemi davki, močnega piva in konkurenčnega vina ostalo 1 proti 2.
Expressed in more precise terms, the relationship between the final selling prices would be 1 : 2.1 instead of 1 : 2.3.
Natančneje, to razmerje v prodajni ceni bi bilo 1 proti 2,1 namesto 1 proti 2,3.
The comparison of the relationship between the selling prices of a litre of strong beer and a litre of wine in competition with strong beer thus makes it clear that the
Primerjava razmerja med prodajno ceno litra piva in litra konkurenčnega vina torej pokaže, da je razlika v ceni med tema proizvodoma skoraj enaka pred obdavčitvijo
2008 — CASE C-167/05 difference in price between those two products is virtually the same before taxation as after taxation.
2008 – ZADEVA C-167/05 in po njej.
In those circumstances, even though the difference between the respective selling prices of beer and competing wines is narrower than that found by the Court in Commission v Belgium, it must be pointed out that the difference in selling price found in the present case is nevertheless such that the difference in the tax treatment of those two products is not liable to influence consumer behaviour in the sector concerned.
V teh okoli�činah, čeprav je razlika med prodajno ceno piva in vina, ki si konkurirata, manj�a od razlike, ki jo je Sodi�če ugotovilo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Belgiji, je treba poudariti, da je razlika v prodajni ceni, ugotovljena v obravnavni zadevi, vendarle taka, da različna obdavčitev teh dveh proizvodov ne bi mogla vplivati na vedenje potro�nika v upo�tevnem sektorju.
It follows from all the foregoing that the Commission has not shown that, in the present case, the difference between the price of strong beer, with an alcoholic strength equal to or higher than 3.5% vol., and the price of wine in the intermediate category, in competition with that beer, is so slight that the difference in the excise duty applicable to those products in Sweden is likely to influence consumer behaviour.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da Komisija v obravnavani zadevi ni dokazala, da bi bila razlika med ceno močnega piva z vsebnostjo alkohola, ki je enaka ali vi�ja od 3,5 vol. % alkohola, in ceno konkurenčnega vina srednjega razreda tako nepomembna, da bi razlika v tro�arinah za ta proizvoda na Švedskem lahko vplivala na vedenje potro�nika.
In view of the finding in paragraph 56 of the present judgment, concerning the relationship of final selling prices, the application of the tax arrangements at issue does not appear to have the effect of affording indirect protection to Swedish beer, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, simply because under those arrangements wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, is taxed more heavily than beer, which is mainly a domestic product.
Glede na ugotovitev iz točke 56 te sodbe v zvezi z razmerjem cen, uporaba zadevne davčne ureditve ni vplivala na posredno za�čito �vedskega piva v smislu člena 90, drugi odstavek, ES le zato, ker zahteva, da se vino, pretežno uvoženo iz drugih držav članic, obdavči bolj od piva, predvsem nacionalnega proizvoda.
In any event, it must be held that the statistical information submitted by the Commission regarding sales of the products in question shows, at most, a certain sensitivity on the part of consumers to variations in the price of those products over a short period, but not long-term changes in consumer habits in favour of beer and to the detriment of wine.
V vsakem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da statistični podatki o prodaji zadevnih proizvodov, ki jih je predstavila Komisija, omogočajo zgolj prikaz določene občutljivosti potro�nika na spremembe cen teh proizvodov za kraj�e obdobje, in ne dolgotrajne spremembe potro�ni�kih navad v korist piva in v �kodo vina.
Admittedly, the Court pointed out, in paragraph 10 of the judgment of 27 February 1980 in Commission v United Kingdom, that it is impossible to require, in each case,
Sodi�če je v točki 10 zgoraj navedene sodbe z dne 27. februarja 1980 v zadevi Komisija proti Združenemu kraljestvu res poudarilo, da za uporabo člena 90, drugi
COMMISSION v SWEDEN for the purposes of applying the second paragraph of Article 90 EC, that the protective effect of internal tax arrangements be shown statistically, but that it is sufficient for it to be shown that a given tax mechanism is likely, in view of its inherent characteristics, to bring about such an effect.
KOMISIJA PROTI ŠVEDSKI odstavek, ES ni mogoče v vseh primerih zahtevati, naj se predložijo statistični dokazi o varovalnem učinku notranje davčne ureditve, a zadostuje ugotovitev, da bi določen davčni mehanizem, glede na njegove značilnosti, lahko povzročil tak učinek.
However, in the present case, in the light of the foregoing, the view must be taken that the Commission has not shown to the required legal standard that the legislation at issue is likely to bring about such a protective effect.
Vendar je treba v obravnavani zadevi glede na navedeno ugotoviti, da Komisija ni pravno zadosti dokazala, da bi lahko zadevna zakonodaja povzročila varovalni učinek.
It follows that the present action must be dismissed as unfounded.
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba tožbo zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
Since the Kingdom of Sweden has applied for costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful in its submissions, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Kraljevina Švedska je predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s tožbenimi razlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Member States which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(4), prvi pododstavek, navedenega poslovnika države članice, ki se kot intervenientke udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
It is therefore appropriate to rule that the Republic of Latvia must bear its own costs.
Zato je treba odločiti, da Republika Latvija nosi svoje stro�ke.
Orders the Republic of Latvia to bear its own costs.
Republika Latvija nosi svoje stroške.
Case C-337/05
Zadeva C-337/05
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Italijanski republiki
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public supply contracts — Directives 77/62/EEC and 93/36/EEC — Award of public contracts without prior publication of a notice — Absence of competitive tendering — Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Javna naročila blaga – Direktivi 77/62/EGS in 93/36/EGS – Dodelitev javnih naročil brez predhodne objave – Neobstoj javnega razpisa – Helikopterji znamk Agusta in Agusta Bell“
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations — Prelitigation procedure — Formal notice (Art. 226 EC)
Tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti – Predhodni postopek – Opomin (člen 226 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-337/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-337/05
Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Directive 93/36 — Derogations from common rules — Restrictive interpretation
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil blaga – Direktiva93/36 – Odstopanja od skupnih pravil – Ozka razlaga
Approximation of laws — Procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Directives 77/62 and 93/36 — Award of contracts
Približevanje zakonodaj – Postopki za oddajo javnih naročil blaga – Direktivi 77/62 in 93/36 – Oddaja javnih naročil
In the prelitigation procedure for failure to fulfil obligations, while the reasoned opinion referred to in Article 226 EC must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty, the letter of formal notice cannot be subject to such strict requirements of precision, since it cannot, of necessity, contain anything more than an initial brief summary of the complaints.
Čeprav mora obrazloženo mnenje iz člena 226 ES vsebovati skladen in podroben prikaz razlogov, ki so Komisijo prepričali, da zadevna država ni izpolnila obveznosti na podlagi Pogodbe, za pisni opomin v predhodni fazi postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti ne veljajo tako stroge zahteve glede natančnosti, tako da mora pisni opomin nujno vsebovati le prvi strnjen povzetek očitkov.
and may be applied only in cases which are set out in an exhaustive list.
(Glej točko 23.) primerih.
To that end, Article 6(2) and (3) of that directive exhaustively and expressly lists the only exceptions for which recourse to the negotiated procedure is allowed.
V ta namen so v členu 6(2) in (3) iste direktive taksativno in izrecno na�tete izjeme, zaradi katerih je uporaba postopka s pogajanji dovoljena.
Derogations from the rules intended to ensure the effectiveness of the rights conferred by the Treaty in connection with public contracts must be interpreted strictly.
Odstopanja od pravil, ki zagotavljajo učinkovitost pravic, priznanih s Pogodbo na področju javnih naročil, je dejansko treba razlagati strogo.
To prevent Directive 93/36 being deprived of its effectiveness, the Member States cannot, therefore, 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 by the directive in question which make that procedure easier to use.
Zato države članice ne bi smele niti določati primerov uporabe postopka s pogajanji, ki niso določeni s to direktivo, niti razvrstiti primerov, ki jih izrecno ureja zadevna direktiva, po novih merilih, katerih posledica bi bila lažja uporaba tega postopka, saj bi se sicer s tem zadevni direktivi odvzel polni učinek.
In addition, the burden of proving the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the 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 okoli�čine, ki upravičujejo izjemo.
It is clear, in particular, from the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, that the negotiated procedure is exceptional in nature
Iz dvanajste uvodne izjave Direktive 93/36 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga zlasti izhaja, da je postopek s pogajanji izjema in se lahko uporablja le v taksativno na�tetih
(see paras 56-58)
(Glej točke od 56 do 58.)
A Member State which adopted a proced- ure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding contracts for the purchase of helicopters of a certain national make to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps, without any competitive tendering procedure, and, in particular, without complying with the procedures provided for by Directive 93/36 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Directive 97/52, and previously, by Directive 77/62 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended and supplemented by Direct- ives 80/767 and 88/295, is failing to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
Država članica, ki je izvajala dolgoletno prakso neposrednega oddajanja naročil za nakup helikopterjev določene nacionalne znamke za potrebe več voja�kih in civilnih korpusov brez kakr�nega koli razpisnega postopka in zlasti s kr�enjem postopkov, ki so določeni z Direktivo 93/36 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/52 in prej z Direktivo 77/62 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga, kot je bila spremenjena in dopolnjena z direktivama 80/767 in 88/295, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz teh direktiv.
Moreover, as regards the legitimate requirements of national interest foreseen in Articles 296 EC and 2(1)(b) of Directive 93/36, on the ground that those helicopters are dual-use items, any Member State may, under Article 296(1)(b) EC, take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security and which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials, provided, however, that such measures do not alter the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes.
Poleg tega, kar zadeva upravičene zahteve v nacionalnem interesu, ki jih določata člena 296 ES in 2(1)(b) Direktive 93/36, lahko vsaka država članica zaradi tega, ker so zadevni helikopterji blago z dvojno rabo, na podlagi člena 296(1)(b) ES sprejme ukrepe v zvezi s proizvodnjo orožja, streliva in voja�kih sredstev ali trgovino z njimi, za katere meni, da so potrebni za za�čito bistvenih interesov njene varnosti; tak�ni ukrepi ne smejo negativno vplivati na pogoje konkurence na skupnem trgu glede proizvodov, ki niso izrecno predvideni v voja�ke namene.
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.
Zato je treba pri nakupu opreme, katere uporaba v voja�ke namene ni gotova, nujno spo�tovati pravila za oddajo javnih naročil.
The supply of helicopters to military corps for the purpose of civilian use must comply with those same rules.
Dobava helikopterjev vojski zaradi uporabe v civilne namene mora spo�tovati ista pravila.
(see paras 38-41, 46-49, 60, operative part)
(Glej točke od 38 do 41, od 46 do 49 in 60 ter izrek.)
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 and in which the contracting authority in question is also a participant, such that it cannot exercise over that company a control similar to that which it exercises over its own departments.
Take prakse ne bi bilo mogoče upravičiti z obstojem odnosa „in house“, če ima zasebno podjetje delež, čeprav samo manj�injski, v kapitalu družbe, ki proizvaja navedene helikopterje in v kateri je udeležen tudi zadevni naročnik, tako da ta naročnik ne more nad to družbo izvr�evati podobnega nadzora, kot ga izvaja nad svojimi službami.