natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The right crystallised when Diehl submitted its tender in the award procedure at issue in the main proceedings.
Omenjena pravica se je konkretizirala, ko je družba Diehl v postopku oddaje naročila, ki se izpodbija v postopku v glavni stvari, oddala svojo ponudbo.
Since that date was not specified in the order for reference, it is appropriate to conclude that it falls between 14 December 2001, the date of the call for tenders, and 14 January 2002, the date of the opening of bids.
Glede na to, da datum oddaje v predložitveni odločbi ni naveden, je treba sklepati, da je bilo to med 14. decembrom 2001, datumom javnega razpisa, ter 14. januarjem 2002, datumom odpiranja ponudb.
Directive 2004/18 had not yet been adopted at that time.
V tem času Direktiva 2004/18 �e ni bila sprejeta.
It follows that the provisions of Directive 93/36 must be taken into consideration for the purposes of the dispute in the main proceedings.
Za postopek v glavni stvari je treba zato uporabiti določbe Direktive 93/36.
There is no provision in Directive 89/665 which expressly governs the protection of confidential information.
Direktiva 89/665 ne vsebuje nobene določbe, ki bi izrecno urejala vpra�anje varstva zaupnih podatkov.
It is necessary, in that respect, to refer to that directive’s general provisions, and in particular to Article 1(1).
Glede na to se je treba opreti na splo�ne določbe direktive, zlasti na člen 1(1).
Article 1(1) provides that the Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that, as regards contract award procedures falling within the scope of, inter alia, Directive 93/36, decisions taken by the contracting authorities may be reviewed effectively on the grounds that such decisions have infringed Community law in the field of public procurement or national rules implementing that law.
Omenjena določba določa, da sprejmejo države članice potrebne ukrepe, da se za postopke oddaje javnih naročil, ki sodijo na področje uporabe Direktive 93/36, zagotovi učinkovita revizija odločitev naročnikov na podlagi tega, da se je s takimi odločitvami kr�ila zakonodaja Skupnosti na področju javnega naročanja ali nacionalni predpisi, s katerimi se to pravo izvaja.
Since the objective of Directive 89/665 is to ensure compliance with Community law in the field of public procurement, Article 1(1) of that directive must be interpreted in the light of the provisions of Directive 93/36 as well as of other provisions of Community law in the field of public procurement.
Glede na to, da je namen Direktive 89/665 zagotoviti spo�tovanje prava Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil, je treba njen člen 1(1) razlagati v luči tako določb Direktive 93/36 kot drugih določb prava Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil.
The principal objective of the Community rules in that field is the opening-up of public procurement to undistorted competition in all the Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-26/03 Stadt Halle and RPL Lochau [2005] ECR I-1, paragraph 44).
Eden od glavnih namenov pravil Skupnosti na področju javnih naročil je prosta in neizkrivljena konkurenca v vseh državah članicah (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2005 v zadevi Stadt Halle in RPL Lochau, C-26/03, ZOdl., str. I-1, točka 44).
In order to attain that objective, it is important that the contracting authorities do not release information relating to contract award procedures which could be used to distort competition, whether in an ongoing procurement procedure or in subsequent procedures.
Za dosego tega namena je pomembno, da naročniki ne razkrivajo podatkov o postopkih oddaje naročil, ki bi jih bilo mogoče v tekočih ali v nadaljnjih postopkih oddaje uporabiti za izkrivljanje konkurence.
Furthermore, both by their nature and according to the scheme of Community legislation in that field, contract award procedures are founded on a relationship of trust between the contracting authorities and participating economic operators.
Poleg tega postopki oddaje naročil tako po naravi kot v skladu s zakonodajnim sistemom Skupnosti temeljijo na zaupnem razmerju med naročniki in gospodarskimi subjekti, ki v njih sodelujejo.
Those operators must be able to communicate any relevant information to the contracting authorities in the procurement process, without fear that the authorities will communicate to third parties items of information whose disclosure could be damaging to them.
Slednji morajo imeti možnost naročnikom posredovati vse koristne podatke za postopek oddaje naročil, ne da bi jih pri tem skrbelo, da bodo naročniki podatke, katerih razkritje bi tem subjektom lahko �kodilo, posredovali tretjim osebam.
Accordingly, Article 15(2) of Directive 93/36 provides that the contracting authorities are obliged to respect fully the confidential nature of any information furnished by the suppliers.
Zato člen 15(2) Direktive 93/36 določa, da morajo naročniki v celoti spo�tovati zaupnost podatkov, ki jih prejmejo od ponudnikov.
In the specific context of informing an eliminated candidate or tenderer of the reasons for the rejection of his application or tender, and of publishing a notice of the award of a contract, Articles 7(1) and 9(3) of Directive 93/36 give the contracting authorities the discretion to withhold certain information where its release would prejudice the legitimate commercial interests of particular undertakings, public or private, or might prejudice fair competition between suppliers.
Izjemoma lahko naročniki pri obvestilih izločenim kandidatom ali ponudnikom o razlogih za zavrnitev kandidature oziroma ponudbe ter v primerih objave obvestila o oddaji naročila v skladu s členoma 7(1) in 9(3) navedene direktive nekatere informacije zadržijo, če bi njihovo razkritje lahko �kodilo zakonitim gospodarskim interesom javnih ali zasebnih podjetij ali poseglo v po�teno konkurenco med ponudniki storitev.
Admittedly, those provisions relate to the conduct of the contracting authorities.
Te določbe se nedvomno nana�ajo na ravnanje naročnikov.
It must nevertheless be acknowledged that their effectiveness would be severely undermined if, in an appeal against a decision taken by a contracting authority in relation to a contract award procedure, all of the information concerning that award procedure had to be made unreservedly available to the appellant, or even to others such as the interveners.
Treba pa je priznati, da bi bila njihova korist zelo omejena, če bi imeli vlagatelj in celo druge osebe, na primer intervenienti, v revizijskem postopku zoper naročnikovo odločitev o oddaji javnega naročila možnost neomejenega vpogleda v celoto podatkov o postopku.
In such circumstances, the mere lodging of an appeal would give access to information which could be used to distort competition or to prejudice the legitimate interests of economic operators who participated in the contract award procedure concerned.
V tem primeru bi že vložitev revizije omogočila dostop do podatkov, ki bi jih bilo mogoče uporabiti za izkrivljanje konkurence ali poseganje v zakonite interese gospodarskih subjektov, ki so sodelovali v zadevnem postopku oddaje javnega naročila.
Such an opportunity could even encourage economic operators to bring an appeal solely for the purpose of gaining access to their competitors’ business secrets.
Tak�na možnost bi lahko gospodarske subjekte spodbudila k vložitvi revizije z enim samim namenom, in sicer dobiti vpogled v poslovne skrivnosti konkurentov.
In such an appeal, the respondent would be the contracting authority and the economic operator whose interests are at risk of being damaged would not necessarily be a party to the dispute or joined to the case to defend those interests.
V postopku revizije je tožena stranka naročnik, medtem ko gospodarski subjekt, katerega interesi so ogroženi, ni nujno stranka postopka niti ni vabljen k udeležbi za za�čito svojih interesov.
Accordingly, it is all the more important to provide for mechanisms which will adequately safeguard the interests of such economic operators.
Zaradi tega je toliko pomembneje, da se predvidijo mehanizmi za ustrezno za�čito teh gospodarskih subjektov.
In a review, the body responsible for the review procedure assumes the obligations laid down by Directive 93/36 with regard to the contracting authority’s respect for the confidentiality of information.
Z Direktivo 93/36 določene obveznosti glede zaupnosti podatkov, ki jo zagotavlja naročnik, vežejo v revizijskem postopku pristojni revizijski organ.
The ‘effective review’ requirement provided for in Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, read in conjunction with Articles 7(1), 9(3) and 15(2) of Directive 93/36, therefore imposes on that body an obligation to take the measures necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of those provisions, and thereby to ensure that fair competition is maintained and that the legitimate interests of the economic operators concerned are protected.
Zahteva po učinkovitosti revizije iz člena 1(1) Direktive 89/665, v povezavi s členi 7(1), 9(3) in 15(2) Direktive 93/36, omenjenemu organu torej nalaga sprejetje potrebnih ukrepov za zagotovitev učinkovitosti teh določb in s tem tudi vzdrževanja po�tene konkurence ter varstva zakonitih interesov zadevnih gospodarskih subjektov.
It follows that, in a review procedure in relation to the award of public contracts, the body responsible for that review procedure must be able to decide that the information in the file relating to such an award should not be communicated to the parties or their lawyers, if that is necessary in order to ensure the protection of fair competition or of the legitimate interests of the economic operators that is required by Community law.
Iz tega sledi, da mora imeti v okviru revizijskega postopka v zvezi z oddajo javnega naročila pristojni organ možnost odločiti, da se podatki v spisu, ki se nana�ajo na oddajo, ne posredujejo strankam in njihovim odvetnikom, če je to nujno za varstvo po�tene konkurence ali zakonitih interesov gospodarskih subjektov, ki ga predvideva pravo Skupnosti.
The question arises whether that interpretation is consistent with the concept of a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘ECHR’).
Zastavlja se vpra�anje, ali je ta razlaga v skladu s pojmom pravičnega sojenja v smislu člena 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, podpisane v Rimu 4. novembra 1950 (v nadaljevanju: EKČP).
As the order for reference shows, Varec claimed before the Conseil d’État that the right to a fair hearing means that both parties must be heard in any judicial procedure, that the adversarial principle is a general principle of law, that it has a foundation in Article 6 of the ECHR, and that that principle means that the parties are entitled to a process of inspecting and commenting on all documents or observations submitted to the court with a view to influencing its decision.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je družba Varec pred Conseil d’État zatrjevala, da pravica do pravičnega sojenja pomeni, da je v celotnem sodnem postopku zagotovljena kontradiktornost, da predstavlja načelo kontradiktornosti splo�no, iz člena 6 EKČP izhajajoče pravno načelo ter da predstavlja to načelo pravico strank v postopku, da se seznanijo z vsemi sodi�ču predloženimi listinami in stali�či, zato da o njih razpravljajo in vplivajo na odločitev sodi�ča.
The Court notes that Article 6(1) of the ECHR provides inter alia that ‘everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal …’. The European Court of Human Rights has consistently held that the adversarial nature of proceedings is one of the factors which enables their fairness to be assessed, but it may be balanced against other rights and interests.
Poudariti velja, da člen 6(1) EKČP med drugim določa, da ima „[v]sakdo […] pravico, da o njegovih […] pravicah in obveznostih […] pravično in javno ter v razumnem roku odloča neodvisno in nepristransko […] sodi�če.“ V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice predstavlja kontradiktornost enega od dejavnikov, na podlagi katerih je mogoče presojati pravičnost postopka, vendar jo je treba uravnotežiti z drugimi pravicami in interesi.
The adversarial principle means, as a rule, that the parties have a right to a process of inspecting and commenting on the evidence and observations submitted to the court.
Načelo konktradiktornosti načeloma pomeni pravico strank v postopku, da se seznanijo s sodi�ču predloženimi dokazi in stali�či in o njih razpravljajo.
However, in some cases it may be necessary for certain information to be withheld from the parties in order to preserve the fundamental rights of a third party or to safeguard an important public interest (see Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom [GC] No 28901/95, §61, ECHR 2000-II, and V v Finland No 40412/98, §75, ECHR 2007-…).
Kljub temu je v včasih nujno, da se določeni podatki strankam ne razkrijejo zaradi varstva temeljnih pravic tretjih oseb ali pomembnega javnega interesa (glej sodbi Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice v zadevi Rowe in Davis proti Združenemu kraljestvu z dne 16. februarja 2000, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2000-II, točka 61, in V. proti Finski z dne 24. aprila 2007, �e neobjavljena v Recueil des arrêts et décisions, točka 75).
One of the fundamental rights capable of being protected in this way is the right to respect for private life, enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, which flows from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States and which is restated in Article 7 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p.
K temeljnim pravicam, ki uživajo tak�no varstvo, sodi iz člena 8 EKČP izhajajoča pravica do spo�tovanja zasebnega življenja, ki izvira iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic in je potrjena v členu 7 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, razgla�ene 7. decembra 2000 v Nici (UL C 361, str. 1) (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 8. aprila 1992 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-62/90, Recueil, str. I-2575, točka 23, in z dne 5. oktobra 1994 v zadevi X proti Komisiji, C-404/92 P, Recueil, str.
It follows from the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights that the notion of ‘private life’ cannot be taken to mean that the professional or commercial activities of either natural or legal persons are excluded (see Niemietz v Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A No 251-B, §29; Société Colas Est and Others v France, No 37971/97, §41, ECHR 2002-III; and also Peck v The United Kingdom No 44647/98, §57, ECHR 2003-I).
Iz sodne prakse Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice izhaja, da pojma zasebnega življenja ni mogoče razlagati, kot da izključuje poklicne ali gospodarske dejavnosti fizičnih in pravnih oseb (glej sodbe Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice v zadevi Niemietz proti Nemčiji z dne 16. decembra 1992, serija A �t.
Those activities can include participation in a contract award procedure.
251-B, točka 29, Société Colas Est in drugi proti Franciji z dne 16. aprila 2002, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2002-III, točka 41, in Peck proti Združenemu kraljestvu z dne 28. januarja 2003, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2003-I, točka 57), dejavnosti, ki lahko zajemajo tudi sodelovanje v postopku oddaje javnega naročila.
Finally, the maintenance of fair competition in the context of contract award procedures is an important public interest, the protection of which is acknowledged in the caselaw cited in paragraph 47 of this judgment.
Končno predstavlja vzdrževanje po�tene konkurence v postopkih oddaje javnih naročil pomemben javni interes, katerega varstvo se priznava na podlagi sodne prakse, navedene v točki 47 te sodbe.
It follows that, in the context of a review of a decision taken by a contracting authority in relation to a contract award procedure, the adversarial principle does not mean that the parties are entitled to unlimited and absolute access to all of the information relating to the award procedure concerned which has been filed with the body responsible for the review.
Iz tega sledi, da v okviru revizije odločitve, ki jo sprejme naročnik v postopku oddaje javnega naročila, načelo kontradiktornosti strankam ne omogoča neomejenega in absolutnega dostopa do celote podatkov o zadevnem postopku oddaje naročila, predloženih pristojnemu revizijskemu organu.
The principle of the protection of confidential information and of business secrets must be observed in such a way as to reconcile it with the requirements of effect- ive legal protection and the rights of defence of the parties to the dispute (see, by analogy, Case C-438/04 Mobistar [2006] ECR I-6675, paragraph 40) and, in the case of judicial review or a review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, in such a way as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial.
Načelo varstva zaupnih podatkov in poslovnih skrivnosti mora biti zagotovljeno tako, da je usklajeno z zahtevami učinkovitega pravnega varstva in varstva pravic obrambe, ki jih imajo stranke v sporu (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 13. julija 2006 v zadevi Mobistar, C-438/04, ZOdl., str. I-6675, točka 40), v primeru pravnega sredstva oziroma sredstva, o katerem odloča organ, ki je sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES, pa tako, da je v celotnem postopku zagotovljeno pravično sojenje.
To that end, the body responsible for the review must necessarily be able to have at its disposal the information required in order to decide in full knowledge of the facts, including confidential information and business secrets (see, by analogy, Mobistar, paragraph 40).
Zato mora imeti pristojni revizijski organ vsekakor možnost pridobiti podatke, na podlagi katerih se popolnoma seznani z zadevo, o kateri odloča, to pa vključuje tudi zaupne podatke in poslovne skrivnosti (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mobistar, točka 40).
Having regard to the extremely serious damage which could result from improper communication of certain information to a competitor, that body must, before communicating that information to a party to the dispute, give the economic operator concerned an opportunity to plead that the information is confidential or a business secret (see, by analogy, AKZO Chemie and AKZO Chemie UK v Commission, paragraph 29).
Glede na resno �kodo, ki bi lahko nastala zaradi nezakonitega posredovanja določenih podatkov konkurentu, mora omenjeni organ pred posredovanjem podatkov stranki v sporu zadevnemu gospodarskemu subjektu omogočiti, da uveljavlja zaupnost podatkov oziroma poslovno skrivnost (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo AKZO Chemie proti Komisiji, točka 29).
Accordingly, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 1(1) of Directive 89/665, read in conjunction with Article 15(2) of Directive 93/36, must be interpreted as meaning that the body responsible for the reviews provided for in Article 1(1) must ensure that confidentiality and business secrecy are safeguarded in respect of information contained in files communicated to that body by the parties to an action, particularly by the contracting authority, although it may apprise itself of such information and take it into consideration.
Zato je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 1(1) Direktive 89/665, v povezavi s členom 15(2) Direktive 93/36, razlagati tako, da mora pristojni revizijski organ v smislu člena 1(1) zagotavljati zaupnost in pravico do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti za podatke v spisih, ki mu jih predložijo stranke postopka, vključno z naročnikom, pri čemer se lahko sam seznani s tovrstnimi podatki in jih upo�teva.
It is for that body to decide to what extent and by what process it is appropriate to safeguard the confidentiality and secrecy of that information, having regard to the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defence of the parties to the dispute and, in the case of judicial review or a review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, so as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial.
Pristojni organ odloča o tem, koliko in kako je treba zagotoviti zaupnost in varstvo podatkov glede na zahteve učinkovitega pravnega varstva in varstva pravic obrambe, ki jih imajo stranke v postopku, v primeru pravnega sredstva oziroma sredstva, o katerem odloča organ, ki je sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES, pa glede na to, da je treba v celotnem postopku zagotoviti pravično sojenje.
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 15(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that the body responsible for the reviews provided for in Article 1(1) must ensure that confidentiality and business secrecy are safeguarded in respect of information contained in files communicated to that body by the parties to an action, particularly by the contracting authority, although it may apprise itself of such information and take it into consideration.
Člen 1(1) Direktive Sveta 89/665/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1989 o usklajevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov o uporabi revizijskih postopkov oddaje javnih naročil za preskrbo in javnih naročil za gradnje, v različici iz Direktive Sveta 92/50/EGS z dne 18. junija 1992 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil storitev, v povezavi s členom 15(2) Direktive Sveta 93/36/EGS z dne 14. junija 1993 o usklajevanju postopkov oddaje javnih naročil blaga, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/52/ES z dne 13. oktobra 1997, je treba razlagati tako, da mora pristojni revizijski organ v smislu člena 1(1) zagotavljati zaupnost in pravico do varstva poslovnih skrivnosti za podatke v spisih, ki mu jih predložijo stranke postopka, vključno z naročnikom, pri čemer se lahko sam seznani s tovrstnimi podatki in jih upošteva.
It is for that body to decide to what extent and by what process it is appropriate to safeguard the confidentiality and secrecy of that information, having regard to the requirements of effective legal protection and the rights of defence of the parties to the dispute and, in the case of judicial review or a review by another body which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC, so as to ensure that the proceedings as a whole accord with the right to a fair trial.
Pristojni organ odloča o tem, koliko in kako je treba zagotoviti zaupnost in varstvo podatkov glede na zahteve učinkovitega pravnega varstva in varstva pravic obrambe, ki jih imajo stranke v postopku, v primeru pravnega sredstva oziroma sredstva, o katerem odloča organ, ki je sodišče v smislu člena 234 ES, pa glede na to, da je treba v celotnem postopku zagotoviti pravično sojenje.
Case C-412/04
Zadeva C-412/04
Commission of the European Communities v
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Italijanski republiki
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public works, supply and service contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC, 93/37/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Transparency — Equal treatment — Contracts excluded from the scope of those directives on account of their value)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Javna naročila gradenj, blaga in storitev – Direktive 92/50/EGS, 93/36/EGS, 93/37/EGS in 93/38/EGS – Preglednost – Enako obravnavanje – Naročila, zaradi vrednosti izključena s področja uporabe teh direktiv“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 652