natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
9 — A 99.999% stake is held by Wien Energie GMBH and a 0.001% stake by Wiener Stadwerke Holding AG. The former is owned by the latter, whose sole shareholder is the City of Vienna.
9 – Družba je do vi�ine 0,001 % v lasti Wiener Stadtwerke Holding AG, katere edini delničar je mesto Dunaj, do vi�ine 99,999 % pa v lasti svoje podružnice, Wien Energie GmbH.
(2) In the event that this is the case only in respect of contracting authorities: must an undertaking such as Fernwärme
Če to velja le za naročnike: ali je treba podjetje, kot je Fernwärme Wien GmbH, opredeliti kot osebo javnega prava v
V — The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice
V – Pristojnost Sodišča smislu Direktive 2004/17/ES ali Direktive 2004/18/ES […], če zagotavlja toplovodno ogrevanje na določenem področju brez prave konkurence, ali pa se je treba ravnati po trgu za ogrevanje prostorov, ki zajema tudi tak�ne vire energije, kot so plin, olje, premog itd.?
In HI, 10the Court held that the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien must be regarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC (paragraph 28).
senat des Landes Wien kot „sodi�če“ v smislu člena 234 ES (točka 28).
In accordance with its settled caselaw on that definition, the Court found that the Vergabekontrollsenat complies with the criteria of being established by law, having compulsory jurisdiction and an inter partes procedure, and applying rules of law (paragraph 26), and that, on account of its composition and functioning, it satisfies the requirements of permanence and independence (paragraph 27).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso glede tega pojma je ugotovilo, da Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien ustreza merilom, kot so zakonska podlaga, obvezna narava njegove sodne pristojnosti, kontradiktorna narava postopka in uporaba pravnih pravil (točka 26), in je obenem sestavljeno in deluje tako, da izpolnjuje zahteve po stalni naravi in neodvisnosti (točka 27).
(3) Must an activity pursued under competitive conditions by a company which also pursues activities of a non-industrial or non-commercial nature be included within the scope of Directive 2004/17/EC or Directive 2004/18/EC if, through effective precautions such as separate balance sheets and accounts, crossfinancing of the activities pursued under competitive conditions can be excluded?’
Ali je treba konkurenčno izvajano dejavnost neke družbe, ki opravlja tudi dejavnost, ki ni industrijske ali tržne narave, zajeti v področje uporabe Direktive 2004/17/ES ali Direktive 2004/18/ES, če se lahko z učinkovitimi ukrepi, kot so ločeni bilančni in računovodski izkazi, izključi navzkrižno financiranje konkurenčno izvajanih dejavnosti ?“
Six months earlier, in my Opinion in De Coster, I criticised that caselaw for being ‘too flexible and not sufficiently consistent’, 11 and I proposed a change of bearing with a view to taking a firmer course 12which, by
Pred �estimi meseci sem v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi De Coster kritiziral to „preveč fleksibilno in […] nekoherentno“ 11 sodno prakso in predlagal prehod na varnej�a pota 12, ki se osredotočajo na bistvo predloga
IV — The procedure before the Court of Justice focusing on the raison d’être of the preliminary ruling, would encourage fruitful cooperation between courts.
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem za sprejetje predhodnih odločb in spodbujajo plodnej�e sodelovanje med sodniki.
La notion de juridiction en droit communautaire’, Liber amicorum Bo Vesterdorf, Emile Bruylant, Brussels, 2007 (printing underway), draws attention to the ambiguous inconsistency of the caselaw which persists in focusing on characteristics which, for the most part, are neither specific nor exclusive to the concept of a court or tribunal, thereby making it more difficult to define the term correctly.
La notion de juridiction en droit communautaire“, Liber amicorum Bo Vesterdorf, Emile Bruylant, Bruselj, 2007, poudarja dvoumno nepovezanost sodne prakse, ki pojma sodne oblasti ne želi povezovati z lastnostmi, ki večinoma niso niti značilne niti izrecne zanjo, s čimer se težavnost natančne opredelitve tega pojma �e poveča.
The parties to the main proceedings, the Commission, and the Austrian, Hungarian and Finnish Governments submitted written observations, and the representatives of Ing.
Stranke v postopku o glavni stvari, Komisija ter avstrijska, madžarska in finska vlada so predložile pisne obrazložitve, zastopniki Ing.
Aigner, the Austrian Government and the Commission presented oral argument at the hearing on 11 October 2007.
Aigner, avstrijske vlade in Komisije, pa so bili prisotni na obravnavi 11. oktobra 2007, na kateri so ustno predstavili svoja stali�ča.
Rundfunk (ÖRF) 14(points 35 to 36).
AIGNER v točkah 35 in 36.
Nor is it appropriate to overlook the fruitful collaboration of the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien in the interpretation of public procurement law.
Ne smemo prezreti niti bogatega prispevka Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien k razlaganju prava o javnih naročilih 15, vendar bodo tudi prizadevanja
For that purpose, I propose that, as a general rule, Article 234 EC should cover only bodies forming part of the judicial power of every State, when they carry out their judicial duties in the proper sense, including, by way of an exception, those bodies which, while not belonging to that structure, have the final word in the national legal order, provided that they satisfy the requirements laid down in caselaw, in particular, the requirements of independence and the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
V tem smislu predlagam splo�no pravilo, da se člen 234 ES uporablja izključno za organe, ki spadajo v sodni sistem vsake države, ko opravljajo popolnoma sodno funkcijo, izjemoma pa tudi za tiste, ki ne spadajo v ta sistem, imajo pa zadnjo besedo v nacionalnem redu, takoj ko izpolnijo merila, ki jih postavlja sodna praksa, zlasti glede neodvisnosti in kontradiktornega postopka.
Recent developments in caselaw reveal 17greater zeal in identifying the features which define the concept of a court or tribunal, especially independ- ence, allowing a glimpse of a position close
V ožjem smislu Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien ne more biti zaobseženo s tem pojmom, ker ne spada v avstrijski sodni sistem („neodvisni upravni senat“) in ker se lahko njegove odločitve, ki jih ni mogoče izpodbijati po upravni poti, sodno izpodbijajo pri Verwaltungsgerichtshof 13.
Thus, in Schmid, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a reference from the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion (Fifth Appeal Chamber of the Regional Finance Authority)
Tako se je v sodbi v zadevi Schmid 19Sodi�če izreklo za nepristojno za odločanje glede predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion (peti prizivni senat regionalne direkcije za finance) za
15 — By way of example, in addition to HI, attention should also be drawn to Case C-470/99 Universale-Bau [2002] ECR I-11617.
16 – V sklepnih predlogih z dne 15. maja 1997 v zadevi Dorsch Consult (C-54/96, Recueil, str.
16 — In the Opinion in Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, Advocate General Tesauro observed that, if a body is not a judicial body, ‘it does not become one simply because there is no better solution’ (point 40).
I-4961) generalni pravobranilec Tesauro pripominja, da če neki organ nima narave sodnega organa, „to ne postane le iz razloga, ker bolj�a re�itev ne obstaja“ (točka 40).
It is not appropriate to reproduce here the points I made in the De Coster Opinion (points 75 to 79) concerning the undesirability of an administrative authority, no matter how independent, intervening in a dialogue between courts, and repeated in the Opinion in Case C-195/06 Österreichischer
Ni primerno, da tukaj ponavljam pomisleke, ki sem jih navedel v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi De Coster (točke od 75 do 79) glede neprimernosti vme�avanja upravnega organa, naj bo �e tako neodvisen, v dialog med sodniki, ki sem jih (24. maja 2007) ponovil v svojih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Österreichischer Rundfunk (ÖRF) 14, C-195/06,
17 — As I pointed out in the Opinion in Case C-259/04 Emanuel [2006] ECR I-3089, point 26.
17 – Kot sem poudaril v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi Emanuel (C-259/04, Zodl., str.
13 — That fact is not mentioned in the judgment in HI.
13 – Ta podatek v sodbi HI ni naveden.14 – Sodba z dne 18. oktobra 2007, ZOdl., str. I-8820.
19 — Case C-516/99 [2002] ECR I-4573.
19 – Sodba z dne 30. maja 2002 (C-516/99, Recueil, str. I-4573).
I cherish the hope that the judges whom I address will be persuaded of the virtues of the proposal set out in De Coster, 25but, in case they do not follow my recommendation, I shall now go on to analyse, in the alternative, the substance of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, with the intention of fulfilling my duty, acting with complete impartiality and independence, to deliver an opinion in open court.
Upam sicer, da bodo sodniki, na katere se obračam, spoznali prednosti ideje, oblikovane v zadevi De Coster 25, vendar pa bom v nadaljevanju, če se s tem stali�čem ne bi strinjali, iz naslova subsidiarnosti analiziral bistvo predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, da izpolnim svojo dolžnost in nepristransko in neodvisno javno predstavim svoje sklepne predloge.
VI — Analysis of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
VI – Pregled vprašanj o predhodnem odločanju
That trend is abundantly clear if regard is had to the fact that, in the past, the Court did deal with questions referred for a preliminary ruling by bodies similar to the ones mentioned, such as the Spanish economic and administrative courts 22 and the Spanish Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia (Competition Court). 23
Ta tendenca se jasno kaže v odločbah, ki jih je Sodi�če v preteklosti izdalo o vpra�anjih za predhodno odločanje, ki so jih podali organi, podobni zgoraj navedenim, npr. �panska gospodarska in upravna sodi�ča 22 in �pansko sodi�če za varstvo konkurence 23.
Community public procurement law pursues an immediate, limited aim: coordination of the procedures for the award of public contracts.
Pravo Skupnosti o javnih naročilih si prizadeva za omejen neposredni cilj: usklajevanje postopkov oddaje javnih naročil.
However, as may be deduced from recital 2 in the preamble to Directive 2004/18 and recital 9 in the
Vendar pa ta cilj, kot izhaja iz druge uvodne izjave Direktive 2004/18 in devete uvodne izjave Direktive 2004/17, pa tudi iz sodne
21 — In connection with that administrative body, Lenaers, K., Arts, D., and Maselis, I., ‘Procedural Law of the European Union’, Robert Bray editor, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006, pp. 40 and 41, describe the transition of the Court of Justice towards a more restrictive construction of the concept of court or tribunal. 22 — Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 Gabalfrisa and Others [2000] ECR I-1577.
21 – Glede tega upravnega organa Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., in Maselis, I., v „Procedural Law of the European Union“, urednik Robert Bray, London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2006, str. 40 in 41, poročajo, da se Sodi�če nagiba k ožjemu razumevanju pojma sodnega organa. 22 – Sodba z dne 21. marca 2000 v zdruŽenih zadevah Gabalfrisa in drugi (C-110/98 do C-147/98, Recueil, str. I-1577).
23 — Case C-67/91 Asociación Española de Banca Privada and Others [1992] ECR I-4785.
23 – Sodba z dne 16. julija 1992 v zadevi Asociación Española de Banca Privada in drugi (C-67/91, Recueil, str. I-4785).
200, asserts that the De Coster opinion ‘amounted to the strongest attack on the caselaw of the Court of Justice in that area’ and that it provides ‘some order in the chaos of the case-law’.
200, so sklepni predlogi De Coster „najostrej�i napad na sodno prakso Sodi�ča na tem področju“ in uvajajo „določen red v kaos sodne prakse“.
26, warns of the insufficiency of interim solutions, such as making stricter the traditional criterion of the independence of the referring court, by tailoring its application to each individual case, and proposes, in line with the De Coster Opinion, a general alteration of the definition of court or tribunal.
238, julij/avgust 2005, str. 26, na nezadostnost konjukturnih postopkov, kot npr. zožitev tradicionalnega načela neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa z uporabo individualiziranega pristopa na dejanskem primeru, in zahteva v skladu s sklepnimi predlogi v zadevi De Coster splo�no spremembo pojma sodi�če.
AIGNER preamble to Directive 2004/17, and also from the caselaw of the Court, 26that is nothing
AIGNER blaga“ in „izvajalec storitev“ po eni strani in pojmov „naročnik“ (člen 1(8) in (9)) po drugi strani, ter objektivno, z opredelitvijo javnih naročil gradenj, blaga in storitev kot tudi koncesij za javne gradnje ali za storitve (člen 1(2) do (4)).
‘contractor’, ‘supplier’ and ‘service provider’, and, on the other, the term ‘contracting authority’ (Article 1(8) and (9)); and objectively, by defining ‘public works contracts’, ‘public service contracts’ and ‘public supply contracts’, together with ‘public works concession’ and ‘service concession’ (Article 1(2) to (4)).
Zato je treba odstraniti nevarnost favoriziranja nacionalnih ponudnikov („buy national“), s tem, da se prepreči, da bi organ, odgovoren za oddajo javnih naročil, vodila razmi�ljanja, ki niso gospodarska 27(zato je osnovno merilo za dodelitev javnega naročila vedno cenovno najnižja ali gospodarsko najugodnej�a ponudba).
So, contracts governed by Directive 2004/18, which are approved by a contracting authority, must be awarded in all the Member States in accordance with the principles and the procedural rules laid down in the directive.
Tako morajo biti javna naročila, ki jih razpi�e „naročnik“ in ki spadajo pod Direktivo 2004/18, v vseh državah članicah oddana v skladu z načeli in postopkovnimi pravili, določenimi z direktivo.
The emphasis is thus placed on the personal dimension, since the conclusive criterion is not the nature of the activity but rather who performs it, because all public procurement is subject to the procedural coordination undertaken by the secondary legislation.
S tem je poudarek na osebni dimenziji: odločilni element ni v naravi zadevne transakcije, marveč v osebnosti tistega, ki jo predlaga, ker je vsako javno naročilo, ki ga odda javni organ, podvrženo postopku usklajevanja, urejenega s sekundarno zakonodajo.
Like its predecessors, Directive 2004/18 delimits its scope as follows: subjectively, by defining, on the one hand, the terms
Kot v predhodnih direktivah je tudi v Direktivi 2004/18 določena omejitev njenega področja uporabe: subjektivno, z opredelitvijo pojmov „izvajalec gradenj“, „dobavitelj
That requirement is so fundamental that, in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others, the Court extended the application of the Community legislation (in that case, Directive 93/37) to all the activities of bodies governed by public law, arguing that the legislature does not make a distinction between contracts relating to needs in the
Ta zahteva je tako temeljna, da so se s sodbo v zadevi Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi predpisi Skupnosti (v tej zadevi Direktiva 93/37) raz�irili na vse dejavnosti oseb javnega prava, sklicujoč se na pravno varnost in dejstvo, da zakonodajalec
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-393/06 was that experience would provide a definitive solution.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-393/06 nega prava ter počakati, da se na podlagi izku�enj pride do končne re�itve 29.
29 general interest and contracts which are unrelated to that task, and citing the interests of legal certainty (paragraphs 32 and 34).
ne razlikuje, ali imajo javna naročila splo�ni interes ali ne (točki 32 in 34).
However, that ‘intersectoral’ (the adjective used by the Commission in its written observations) harmonisation was abandoned in Directive 2004/17 which, rather than applying to all the activities of the contracting entities, concerns only those activities set out in Articles 3 to 7.
Vendar pa tega „medsektorskega“ (Komisija je ta pridevnik uporabila v svojih pisnih stali�čih) usklajevanja ni v Direktivi 2004/17, ki se ne uporablja za vse dejavnosti „naročnikov“, marveč le za tiste, navedene v členih od 3 do 7.
The opportunity arose on the adoption of Directive 93/38, which coordinated public procurement procedures in those excluded markets and defined the contracting bodies without reference to their legal status (public or private).
Priložnost je pri�la z Direktivo 93/38, ki je uskladila postopke oddaje javnih naročil v teh sektorjih in opredelila naročnike neodvisno od njihovega pravnega statusa (javni ali zasebni).
The directive also took into account the capacity of national authorities to influence the behaviour of such entities, due to the closed nature of the markets concerned and to the existence of special or exclusive rights, for the purposes of also opening up those markets to competition (recitals 9, 11 and 12).
Upo�tevala je tudi možnost vpliva nacionalnih organov na njihovo dejavnost, s čimer bi se zaradi zaprtosti zadevnega trga in obstoja posebnih ali izključnih pravic tudi ti trgi odprli konkurenci (deveta, enajsta in dvanajsta uvodna izjava).
That was the justification for the fact that, in addition to the entities referred to in the standard direct- ives in the field, the scope ratione personae of the directive included public undertakings and affiliated undertakings (Article 1(2) and (3)), and care was taken to specify that such undertakings were governed by the directive only if they carried out activities in the sectors referred to therein (recital 13 30and Article 2).
S tem se upraviči subjektivna komponenta, po kateri zajema direktiva poleg subjektov, opredeljenih s klasičnimi smernicami na tem področju, tudi javna podjetja in povezana podjetja (člen 1(2) in (3)), pri tem pa se pazi na to, da se pojasni, da so direktivi podvržena le, če delujejo na področjih, navedenih v njej (trinajsta uvodna izjava 30 in člen 2).
The reason that the subjectmatter of Directive 2004/17 is so specific is that, originally, contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors were not harmonised 28 owing to the diverse nature of the legal status (public or private) of the bodies responsible for those services.
Ta posebnost se razloži z dejstvom, da se zaradi različnih pravnih statusov (javni ali zasebni) vpletenih subjektov javna naročila v vodnem, energetskem, transportnem sektorju in telekomunikacijskem sektorju sprva niso usklajevala 28.
It was necessary to avoid making those services subject to different systems depending on whether they come under the State, regional or local authorities or other bodies governed by public law, or whether they come under bodies governed by private law, and the hope
Treba je bilo preprečiti, da bi bili ti sektorji podvrženi različnim sistemom, glede na to, ali spadajo pod državo, lokalno skupnost ali drug subjekt javnega prava, regionalni ali lokalni organ ali drugo ustanovo, ki ima status pravne osebe zaseb-
30 — That recital excludes from the scope of Directive 93/38 ‘… activities of those entities which either fall outside the sectors of water, energy and transport services or outside the telecommunications sector, or which fall within those sectors but are nevertheless directly exposed to competitive forces in markets to which entry is unrestricted’.
30 – Glede na to uvodno izjavo se direktiva ne uporablja za „dejavnosti tistih subjektov, ki bodisi ne spadajo v sektor vodnih, energetskih in transportnih storitev ali ne spadajo v telekomunikacijski sektor, ali tistih, ki spadajo v te sektorje, vendar so kljub temu neposredno izpostavljeni konkurenčnim zakonitostim na trgih, na katere vstop ni omejen“.
AIGNER the other hand, Directive 2004/17 is aimed at promoting the establishment of free competition, for which reason, pursuant to Article 30(1) thereof, it does not apply where the activities concerned are carried out on markets to which access is not restricted.
AIGNER v členu 30(1), če se te dejavnosti opravljajo na trgih z neomejenim dostopom.
contracting entities without reference to their legal status (recital 10).
„naročniki“ niso definirani na podlagi njihovega pravnega statusa (deseta uvodna izjava).
Therefore, in addition to contracting authorities, which are identified in the same terms as in Directive 2004/18, the directive defines as contracting entities public undertakings and entities which have special or exclusive rights, provided that they carry out the activities referred to in Articles 3 to 7 (Articles 2(1) and (2) and 20(1)).
Poleg „naročnikov“, ki so opredeljeni na enak način v Direktivi 2004/18, ta direktiva v kategorijo „naročnikov“ posledično �teje tudi javna podjetja ter podjetja, ki imajo posebne ali izključne pravice, če izvajajo eno od dejavnosti iz členov od 3 do 7 (člena 2(1) in (2) in 20(1)).
Therefore, the contracting authorities referred to in Directive 2004/18 are subject to Directive 2004/17 if they fall within its material scope, whereas the same does not apply to public undertakings and the holders of special or exclusive rights per se.
Tako so „naročniki“ v smislu Direktive 2004/18 vezani na Direktivo 2004/17, če delujejo v okviru stvarnega področja uporabe te direktive, to pa ne velja za javna podjetja in podjetja s posebnimi in izrecnimi pravicami kot tak�nimi.
Accordingly, Directive 2004/17 governs procurement in what are traditionally known as ‘excluded sectors’, and its spirit is different to that prompting Directive 2004/18. The conclusive criterion is not the contracting entity but rather the nature of the activity to which the contract concerned relates, and the directive applies only to the sectors concerned.
Tako je v Direktivi 2007/17 oddaja javnih naročil v sektorjih, ki so tradicionalno opredeljeni kot „izločeni“, urejena v drugačnem duhu kot v Direktivi 2004/18: odločilni element ni subjekt, ki odda javno naročilo, temveč vrsta dejavnosti, na katero se to javno naročilo nana�a, saj se direktiva uporablja le v ustreznih sektorjih.
On the one hand, the first paragraph of Article 12 of Directive 2004/18 excludes from its ambit contracts awarded by contracting authorities exercising the activities referred to in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17, which draws attention to the importance of the material scope in the application of the latter provision. On
Po eni strani so po členu 12(1) Direktive 2004/18 iz njenega področja uporabe izvzeta tista javna naročila, ki jih oddajo „naročniki“, ki izvajajo dejavnosti iz členov od 3 do 7 Direktive 2004/17, s čimer se pojasni pomen stvarne komponente pri uporabi te direktive. Po drugi strani pa naj bi Direktiva 2004/17 prispevala k ustvarjanju svobodne konkurence, tako da se ne uporablja, kot navedeno
Those factors support the view that the infection theory does not apply to the present case.
Te okoli�čine potrjujejo neuporabnost „teorije kontaminacije“ v tej zadevi.
In the Opinion in Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria and Others, Advocate General Léger pointed out that the scope of Directive 93/37 (and that of Directive 2004/18) is not determined according to the activity in respect of which contracts are awarded but rather by reference to the characteristics of the body entering into the contract (paragraph 81).
V sklepnih predlogih z dne 16. septembra 1997 v zadevi Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria in drugi generalni pravobranilec Léger poudarja, da se področje uporabe Direktive 93/37 (pa tudi Direktive 2004/18) ne določa po dejavnosti, v okviru katere se oddajo naročila, marveč po lastnostih subjekta, ki je javno naročilo oddal (točka 81).