natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That Member State also sent the Commission a draft law repealing Decree-Law No 48 051 and laying down new legal rules governing the noncontractual liability of the Portuguese State and the other public bodies concerned, while requesting the Commission to indicate whether it considered that the draft law would ensure the correct and complete transposition of Directive 89/665.
Ta država članica je Komisiji predložila tudi predlog zakona o razveljavitvi uredbezakona �t. 48 051 in o novi pravni ureditvi nepogodbene civilne odgovornosti Portugalske in drugih zadevnih subjektov javnega prava, pri čemer je od nje zahtevala, naj se opredeli do tega, ali bi bile z ukrepi iz tega predlaganega zakona izpolnjene zahteve za pravilen in popoln prenos Direktive 89/665.
On 21 March 2005, the Commission sent a formal letter of notice to the Portuguese authorities in which it informed them, first, that the changes in government which had taken place did not, in accordance with the caselaw of the Court, justify the failure to comply with the obligations and the time-limits laid down in Directive 89/665.
Komisija je 21. marca 2005 portugalskim organom poslala pisni opomin, v katerem je zatrjevala, da v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča sprememba vlade ne upravičuje neizpolnitve obveznosti iz Direktive 89/665 in nespo�tovanja rokov, ki jih ta direktiva določa.
Second, the Commission stated in that letter that the draft law — which had not, moreover, yet been approved by the Assembleia da República (Parliament) — did not, in any event, comply with Directive 89/665.
Komisija je v tem opominu opozorila, da zgoraj navedeni predlog zakona, ki ga Assembleia da República (parlament) niti �e ni potrdil, nikakor ni skladen z Direktivo 89/665.
Dissatisfied with the response provided on 25 May 2005 by the Portuguese Republic, the Commission sent the latter a reasoned opinion on 13 July 2005 in which it stated that, having still failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, that Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.
Ker Komisija z odgovorom Portugalske republike z dne 25. maja 2005 ni bila zadovoljna, je 13. julija 2005 izdala obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem je navedla, da ta država članica s tem, da �e ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 228(1) ES.
The Commission requested the Portuguese Republic to comply with that reasoned opinion within a time-limit of two months from receipt thereof.
Komisija je navedeno državo članico pozvala, naj v dveh mesecih od prejetja tega obrazloženega mnenja sprejme ukrepe, potrebne za uskladitev z njim.
Considering that the Portuguese Republic had still not complied with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, on 7 February 2006 the Commission brought the present action.
Ker je Komisija menila, da Portugalska republika �e ni izvr�ila zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, je 7. februarja 2006 vložila obravnavano tožbo.
The alleged failure to fulfil obligations
Neizpolnitev obveznosti
Arguments of the parties
Trditve strank
The Commission considers that, since it has not repealed Decree-Law No 48 051, the Portuguese Republic has not taken the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal.
Komisija meni, da Portugalska republika s tem, da ni razveljavila uredbezakona �t. 48 051, ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski.
The Portuguese Republic submits, by contrast, that the action is unfounded in so far as the body of rules set out in draft law No 56/X, although not yet definitely approved by the parliament, constitutes adequate transposition of the provisions of Directive 89/665 and ensures full compliance with the obligations under the judgment in Commission v Portugal.
Nasprotno Portugalska republika trdi, da tožba ni utemeljena, ker ureditev v predlogu zakona �t. 56/X, čeprav ga parlament �e ni končno potrdil, pomeni primeren prenos določb Direktive 89/665 in zagotavlja celotno izvr�itev obveznosti iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski.
That Member State submits, in addition, that it has always ‘fully intended’ to introduce a body of rules governing the noncontractual liability of public law entities in accordance with the requirements of Directive 89/665, but that the constitutional difficulties involved, the nature and importance of which should, at the very least, mitigate its liability, prevented it from attaining that result.
Poleg tega ta država članica trdi, da je imela vedno „trden namen“ vzpostaviti ureditev civilne odgovornosti subjektov javnega prava v skladu z zahtevami iz Direktive 89/665, vendar ji zaradi težav v ustavnem redu, zaradi značilnosti in pomembnosti katerih bi morala biti njena odgovornost vsaj zmanj�ana, tega ni uspelo storiti.
Finally, the Portuguese Republic submits that, in any case, Articles 22 and 271 of its Constitution and the new code of procedure of administrative courts sufficiently ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal in so far as they already provide for State liability as a result of damage caused by acts committed by its officials and agents.
Nazadnje, Portugalska republika trdi, da člena 22 in 271 njene ustave ter novi zakonik o upravnem sporu vsekakor zagotavljata zadostno izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, ker že določata odgovornost države za �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi ravnanj njenih uradnikov in uslužbencev.
Findings of the Court
Presoja Sodišča
In point 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Commission v Portugal, the Court held that, by failing to repeal Decree-Law No 48 051, the Portuguese Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 89/665.
Sodi�če je v točki 1 izreka zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski razsodilo, da Portugalska republika s tem, da ni razveljavila uredbezakona �t. 48 051, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 1(1) in 2(1)(c) Direktive Sveta 89/665.
In the context of the present proceedings for failure to comply with obligations, in order to check whether the Portuguese Republic has adopted the measures necessary to comply with the judgment at issue, it needs to be determined whether Decree-Law No 48 051 has been repealed.
V okviru te tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti je treba – da bi preverili, ali je Portugalska republika sprejela ukrepe za izvr�itev navedene sodbe – ugotoviti, ali je bila uredbazakon �t. 48 051 razveljavljena.
In the present case, it is common ground that, on the date of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion addressed to it on 13 July 2005, the Portuguese Republic had not yet repealed Decree-Law No 48 051.
V obravnavani zadevi ni sporno, da Portugalska republika do datuma izteka roka, ki je določen v obrazloženem mnenju, ki ji je bil poslan 13. julija 2005, �e ni razveljavila uredbezakona �t. 48 051.
In the light of the above, it must be found that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba ugotoviti, da Portugalska republika s tem, da ni sprejela ukrepov, potrebnih za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 228(1) ES.
That finding cannot be called into question by the argument raised by the Portuguese Republic that constitutional difficulties have prevented it from passing a definitive text repealing Decree-Law No 48 051 and, thus, from complying with the judgment in Commission v Portugal.
Te ugotovitve ni mogoče izpodbijati s trditvijo Portugalske republike, da naj zaradi težav v ustavnem redu ne bi pri�lo do končne potrditve akta, s katerim bi bila razveljavljena uredbazakon �t. 48 051, in tako do izvr�itve zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski.
According to settled caselaw, a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify the failure to observe obligations arising under Community law (see Commission v Germany, paragraph 38 and the caselaw cited).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se država članica namreč ne sme sklicevati na določbe, prakso ali položaje svojega notranjega pravnega reda, da bi upravičila nespo�tovanje obveznosti, ki jih nalaga pravo Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 38 in navedena sodna praksa).
Similarly, the argument of the Portuguese Republic that State liability for damage caused by acts committed by its officials and agents is already laid down in other provisions of national law cannot be accepted.
Niti ni mogoče sprejeti trditve Portugalske republike, da je odgovornost države za �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi ravnanj njenih uradnikov in uslužbencev, določena že z drugimi določbami njenega nacionalnega prava.
As the Court held in paragraph 33 of its judgment in Commission v Portugal, that fact has no bearing on the failure to fulfil obligations constituted by maintaining Decree-Law No 48 051 in force in the national legal system.
Kot je namreč Sodi�če odločilo v točki 33 zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, ta okoli�čina ne vpliva na neizpolnitev zaradi ohranitve uredbezakona �t. 48 051 v notranjem pravnem redu.
The existence of such provisions cannot, therefore, ensure compliance with that judgment.
Zaradi obstoja takih določb torej ni mogoče zagotoviti izvr�itve navedene sodbe.
On the basis of the method of calculation set out in Communication 96/C 242/07 of 21 August 1996 on applying Article [228] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1996 C 242, p.
Komisija na podlagi načina izračuna, ki ga opredeljujeta Obvestilo 96/C 242/07 z dne 21. avgusta 1996 o uporabi člena [228] Pogodbe (UL C 242, str.
6; ‘the Communication of 1996’), and Communication 97/C 63/02 of 28 February 1997 concerning the method of calculating the penalty payments provided for pursuant to Article [228] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1997 C 63, p.
6, v nadaljevanju: Obvestilo iz leta 1996) in Obvestilo 97/C 63/02 z dne 28. februarja 1997 o načinu izračuna denarne kazni, določene v členu [228] Pogodbe ES (UL C 63, str.
2; ‘the Communication of 1997’), the Commission proposes that the Court impose a penalty payment on the Portuguese Republic of EUR 21 450 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Commission v Portugal, from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the breach of obligations is brought to an end.
2, v nadaljevanju: Obvestilo iz leta 1997), Sodi�ču predlaga, naj Portugalski republiki naloži denarno kazen 21.450 EUR za vsak dan zamude kot sankcijo za neizvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski od datuma razglasitve te sodbe do datuma, ko bo neizpolnitev obveznosti odpravljena.
The Commission considers that the imposing of a penalty payment constitutes the most appropriate sanction for bringing the breach of obligations to an end as quickly as possible.
Komisija meni, da je denarna kazen najprimernej�e sredstvo za najhitrej�o odpravo ugotovljene kr�itve.
The amount of that penalty payment is calculated by multiplying a uniform base of EUR 500 by a coefficient of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 20) for the seriousness of the infringement, a coefficient of 1 (on a scale of 1 to 3) for the duration of the
Znesek te denarne kazni bi bilo treba izračunati tako, da bi enotno osnovo 500 EUR pomnožili s koeficientom 11 (na lestvici od 1 do 20) za resnost kr�itve, s koeficientom 1 (na lestvici od 1 do 3) za trajanje kr�itve in s koeficientom
2008 — CASE C-70/06 infringement and a coefficient of 3.9 calculated on the basis of the Portuguese Republic’s gross domestic product and the weighting of the votes which that Member State has in the Council of the European Union, which reflects that Member State’s ability to pay.
3,9, ki temelji na bruto domačem proizvodu Portugalske republike in na ponderaciji glasov te države članice v Svetu Evropske unije, ki odraža plačilno sposobnost navedene države članice.
The Portuguese Republic considers that the amount of the penalty payment suggested by the Commission is manifestly disproportionate in the light of the circumstances of the present case and is not consistent with the Court’s well-established caselaw in the field.
Portugalska republika zatrjuje, da je znesek denarne kazni, ki ga je predlagala Komisija, ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin obravnavane zadeve, očitno nesorazmeren in ni v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča na tem področju.
The objections raised by that Member State concern two aspects of the methods of calculation of the penalty payment in particular.
Ugovori te države članice se nana�ajo zlasti na dva vidika načina izračuna denarne kazni. Prvič, koeficient 11 za resnost kr�itve, ki ga je uporabila Komisija, naj bi bil kot sankcija za zatrjevano delno neizpolnitev obveznosti države članice na področju javnih naročil pretiran, ker naj bi Komisija v okviru tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na bolj občutljivih področjih od tega, zlasti na področju javnega zdravja (sodba z dne 4. julija 2000 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji, C-387/97, Recueil, str.
First, the coefficient of 11 for seriousness applied by the Commission is excessive to sanction an alleged partial failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations in the area of public procurement since, in respect of actions for failure to act concerning areas which are more sensitive than the present one, such as public health (Case C-387/97 Commission v Greece [2000] ECR I-5047) or the environment (Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-14141), the Commission suggested coefficients for seriousness of 6 and 4 respectively.
I-5047) ali področju okolja (sodba z dne 25. novembra 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-278/01, Recueil, str. I-14141), predlagala koeficienta za resnost kr�itve 4 oziroma 6.
Consequently, the coefficient for seriousness fixed by the Court in the present case should not exceed 4.
Sodi�če bi zato moralo v obravnavani zadevi določiti denarno kazen na podlagi koeficienta za resnost kr�itve, ki ne presega 4.
Second, in accordance with point 13.3 of the Commission’s Communication implementing Article 228 of the EC Treaty (SEC(2005) 1658; ‘the Communication of 2005’), the reference period to be used in these circumstances to assess whether the national legislation at issue is compatible with Directive 89/665 must be calculated on an annual basis and not, as proposed by the Commission, on a daily basis.
Drugič, v skladu s točko 13,3 Obvestila Komisije o uporabi člena 228 Pogodbe ES (SEC(2005) 1658, v nadaljevanju: Obvestilo iz leta 2005) bi v obravnavani zadevi moral biti za presojo skladnosti nacionalne ureditve z Direktivo 89/665 ustrezen referenčni časovni okvir letni, ne pa dnevni, kot je predlagala Komisija.
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL provided for in point 13.4 of the Communication of 2005, in consideration of which the Court may, in exceptional cases, order the suspension of the penalty payment when a Member State has already adopted the measures necessary to comply with a judgment finding there to be a failure to comply with obligations, but a certain amount of time must inevitably pass before the desired result is achieved.
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI namreč predvidena v točki 13.4 Obvestila iz leta 2005, v skladu s katero lahko Sodi�če v izjemnih primerih zahteva zadržanje denarne kazni, če je država članica že sprejela ukrepe, potrebne za izvr�itev sodbe o ugotovitvi neizpolnitve obveznosti, vendar mora za dosego cilja preteči določeno obdobje.
The Portuguese Republic considers that to be the case here.
Portugalska republika torej meni, da gre v obravnavani zadevi za tak primer.
Having recognised that the Portuguese Republic has not complied with its judgment in Commission v Portugal, the Court may, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 228(2) EC, impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it.
Ker Sodi�če meni, da Portugalska republika ni izvr�ila zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, lahko na podlagi člena 228(2), tretji pododstavek, ES državi članici naloži plačilo pav�alnega zneska ali denarne kazni.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that it is for the Court to assess in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the financial penalties to be imposed (Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 86, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I-2461, paragraph 58)
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če tisto, ki mora ob upo�tevanju okoli�čin obravnavane zadeve v vsakem primeru posebej presoditi, kolik�na naj bo denarna sankcija (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 86, in sodba z dne 14. marca 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-177/04, ZOdl., str. I-2461, točka 58).
In the present case, as pointed out in paragraph 25 of this judgment, the Commission suggests that the Court should impose a penalty payment on the Portuguese Republic.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 25 te sodbe, Komisija v obravnavani zadevi Sodi�ču predlaga, naj Portugalski republiki naloži denarno kazen.
It should also be made clear that those two communications were replaced by the Communication of 2005 which, pursuant to point 25 thereof, applies to decisions taken by the Commission from 1 January 2006 to refer a matter to the Court of Justice under Article 228 EC.
Poleg tega je treba pojasniti, da je ti obvestili nadomestilo Obvestilo iz leta 2005, ki v skladu z odstavkom 25 velja za odločitve Komisije, da se obrne na Sodi�če na podlagi člena 228, sprejete od 1. januarja 2006 naprej.
In that regard, it must, first, be pointed out that the Commission’s suggestions cannot bind the Court and merely constitute a useful point of reference (see Commission v Greece, paragraph 80, and Commission v Spain, paragraph 41).
Glede tega je treba najprej poudariti, da predlogi Komisije Sodi�ča ne zavezujejo in so zgolj koristen napotek (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Grčiji, točka 80, in Komisija proti Španiji, točka 41).
Similarly, guidelines such as those contained in the communications of the Commission are not binding on the Court but contribute to ensuring that that institution’s actions are transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 85, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 70).
Dalje, smernice, ki so vsebovane v obvestilih Komisije, za Sodi�če niso zavezujoče, temveč prispevajo k zagotovitvi preglednosti, predvidljivosti in pravne varnosti v zvezi z ravnanjem te institucije (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 85, in Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 70).
The Court has also stated that the order imposing a penalty payment and/or a lump sum is intended to place a defaulting Member State under economic pressure which induces it to put an end to the breach established.
Sodi�če je poleg tega pojasnilo, da je namen naložitve plačila denarne kazni in/ali pav�alnega zneska izvesti ekonomski pritisk na državo članico, ki je zamudnica pri izvr�itvi sodbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, da bi jo spodbudili k odpravi ugotovljene neizpolnitev obveznosti.
The financial penalties imposed must therefore be decided upon according to the degree of persuasion needed in order for the Member State in question to alter its conduct (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 91, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraphs 59 and 60).
Naložene denarne kazni morajo biti torej določene glede na stopnjo potrebne prepričljivosti, da zadevna država članica spremeni ravnanje (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 91, in Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točki 59 in 60).
It must be found, in the present case, that, during the hearing at the Court on 5 July 2007, the agent of the Portuguese Republic confirmed that Decree-Law No 48 051 was still in force on that date.
V obravnavani zadevi je treba torej ugotoviti, da je zastopnik Portugalske republike med obravnavo Sodi�ča 5. julija 2007 potrdil, da je uredbazakon �t. 48 051 na ta dan �e veljala.
Given that it must be considered that the failure to fulfil obligations at issue was still apparent when the Court examined the facts, it must be found that, as suggested by the Commission, the order imposing a penalty payment on the Portuguese Republic constitutes a means adapted in order to induce that Member State to take the meas-
Ker je treba upo�tevati, da je zadevna neizpolnitev na dan, ko je Sodi�če preučilo dejansko stanje, �e trajala, je treba ugotoviti, kot predlaga Komisija, da je naložitev denarne kazni Portugalski republiki primerno sredstvo, da se jo spodbudi k sprejetju ukrepov, ki so potrebni za izvr�itev zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL ures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 31; Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 21; and Commission v Italy, paragraph 33).
(glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 31; Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 21, in Komisija proti Italiji, točka 33).
Next, as regards the method of calculation of the amount of such a penalty payment, it is for the Court, in exercising its discretion, to set the penalty payment so that it is appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach that has been established and to the ability to pay of the Member State concerned (see, inter alia, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 103, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 61).
Dalje, v zvezi z načinom izračuna zneska take denarne kazni Sodi�če pri izvr�evanju pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku določi tako denarno kazen, da je ta po eni strani prilagojena okoli�činam in po drugi strani sorazmerna z ugotovljeno kr�itvijo in z zmožnostjo plačila zadevne države članice (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 103, in Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 61).
In that light, the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that penalty payments have coercive force and Community law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, its degree of seriousness and the ability of the Member State to pay.
S tega stali�ča so temeljna merila, ki jih je treba upo�tevati za zagotovitev prisilne narave denarne kazni z namenom enotne in učinkovite uporabe prava Skupnosti, načeloma trajanje kr�itve, stopnja njene resnosti in zmožnost plačila zadevne države članice.
In applying those criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure to comply on private and public interests and to the urgency of inducing the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations (see, inter alia, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 104, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraph 62).
Za uporabo teh meril je treba upo�tevati zlasti posledice neizvr�itve za zasebne in javne interese ter obstoječo nujnost, da se zadevna država članica prisili v to, da izpolni obveznosti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Franciji z dne 12. julija 2005, točka 104, in Komisija proti Franciji z dne 14. marca 2006, točka 62).