natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
21 In the present case, the Court considers that the request for a preliminary ruling does not need to be examined on the basis of an argument that has not yet been debated before it and that it has all the information necessary to deal with the request for a preliminary ruling.
21 U ovom predmetu Sud smatra da zahtjev za prethodnu odluku ne treba preispitivati na temelju argumenata o kojima se na tom Sudu nije raspravljalo i da ima sve informacije potrebne za rješavanje zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku.
22 The request by the applicant in the main proceedings that a new hearing be held and her alternative application for leave to submit additional written observations must therefore be dismissed.
22 Stoga zahtjev tužiteljice u glavnom postupku da se održi nova rasprava i njezin alternativni zahtjev da se podnesu dodatna pisana očitovanja ne treba prihvatiti.
The questions referred to the Court
O prethodnim pitanjima
23 By its questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, includes the assessment of the effects of the project under examination on the value of material assets and, secondly, that the fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of Directive 85/337, confers on an individual a right to compensation for pecuniary damage caused by a decrease in the value of his property resulting from the environmental effects of the project under examination.
23 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim pitanjima u biti želi ispitati treba li članak 3. Direktive 85/337 tumačiti na način da, s jedne strane, procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena u tom članku, uključuje procjenu utjecaja predmetnog projekta na vrijednost materijalnih dobara i, s druge strane, da ostaje činjenica da procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije provedena, što predstavlja povredu Direktive 85/337, pojedincu daje pravo na naknadu imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine zbog utjecaja predmetnog projekta na okoliš.
24 As regards the term `material assets' within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 85/337, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, it follows from the need for a uniform application of European Union law that the terms of a provision of European Union law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see Case C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43, and Case C-497/10 PPU Mercredi [2010] ECR I-14309, paragraph 45).
24 Što se tiče pojma „materijalna dobra" u smislu članka 3. Direktive 85/337, valja napomenuti da iz zahtjeva za jedinstvenom primjenom prava Unije proizlazi da izrazi u nekoj odredbi prava Unije koja [izravno] ne upućuje na pravo država članica, radi utvrđenja njezinog sadržaja i opsega, moraju u pravilu dobiti autonomno i jedinstveno tumačenje na cijelom području Europske unije koje valja dati vodeći računa o kontekstu odredbe i cilju koji se želi postići propisom o kojemu je riječ (vidjeti presude od 19. rujna 2000., Linster, C-287/98 Zb., str. I-6917., t. 43. i od 22. prosinca 2010., Mercredi, C-497/10 PPU, Zb., str. I-14309., t. 45.).
25 Pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 85/337, it is necessary to examine the direct and indirect effects of a project on, inter alia, human beings and material assets and, in accordance with the fourth indent of that article, it is also necessary to examine such effects on the interaction between those two factors.
25 U skladu s člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, valja ispitati izravne i neizravne utjecaje projekta na, između ostalog, ljude i materijalna dobra te, u skladu s četvrtom alinejom tog članka, isto tako valja ispitati te utjecaje na međudjelovanje ta dva faktora.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine, in particular, the effects of a project on the use of material assets by human beings.
Dakle, treba ispitati posebno utjecaj projekta na čovjekovu uporabu materijalnih dobara.
26 It follows that, in the assessment of projects such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are liable to result in increased aircraft noise, it is necessary to assess the effects of the latter on the use of buildings by human beings.
26 Iz toga proizlazi da u procjeni projekata poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, koji mogu prouzročiti povećanje buke zrakoplova, treba procijeniti utjecaj te buke na uporabu zgrada od strane čovjeka.
27 However, as has correctly been pointed out by Land Niederösterreich and by several of the governments which have submitted observations to the Court, an extension of the environmental assessment to the pecuniary value of material assets cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 3 of Directive 85/337 and would also not be in accordance with the purpose of that directive.
27 Međutim, kao što su to pravilno primijetile Land Niederösterreich i nekoliko vlada koje su Sudu podnijele očitovanja, iz teksta članka 3. Direktive 85/337 ne može se zaključiti da proširenje procjene utjecaja na okoliš obuhvaća i procjenu utjecaja na imovinsku vrijednost materijalnih dobara pa ni ono ne bi značilo bolju usklađenost sa svrhom te direktive.
28 It follows from Article 1(1) of, and from the first, third, fifth and sixth recitals in the preamble to, Directive 85/337 that the purpose of that directive is an assessment of the effects of public and private projects on the environment in order to attain one of the Community's objectives in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life.
28 Iz članka 1. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337 i iz njezine prve, treće, pete i šeste uvodne izjave proizlazi da je svrha te direktive procjena utjecaja javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš radi postizanja jednog od ciljeva Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša i kvalitete života. Na taj se cilj odnose i podaci koje investitor mora dostaviti u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1.
The information which must be supplied by the developer in accordance with Article 5(1) of, and Annex IV to, Directive 85/337, as well as the criteria which enable Member States to determine whether small-scale projects, meeting the characteristics laid down in Annex III to that directive, require a environmental assessment, also relate to that purpose.
Direktive 85/337 i njezinim Prilogom IV., kao i kriteriji na temelju kojih države članice mogu odrediti je li za projekte manjeg razmjera, koji imaju karakteristike utvrđene u Prilogu III. toj direktivi, potrebna procjena utjecaja na okoliš.
29 Consequently, it is necessary to take into account only those effects on material assets which, by their very nature, are also likely to have an impact on the environment.
29 Stoga valja uzeti u obzir samo one utjecaje na materijalna dobra koji bi zbog svoje prirode isto tako mogli utjecati na okoliš.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 3 of that directive, an environmental impact assessment carried out in accordance with that article is one which identifies, describes and assesses the direct and indirect effects of noise on human beings in the event of use of a property affected by a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
Prema tome, na temelju članka 3. te direktive, procjena utjecaja na okoliš provedena u skladu s tim člankom je procjena kojom se identificiraju, opisuju i procjenjuju izravni i neizravni utjecaji buke na čovjeka u slučaju uporabe nekretnine na koju utječe projekt poput onoga o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku.
30 It must therefore be held that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in Article 3 of Directive 85/337, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets.
30 Stoga valja zaključiti da procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena u članku 3. Direktive 85/337, ne obuhvaća procjenu utjecaja koju predmetni projekt ima na vrijednost materijalnih dobara.
31 That finding, however, does not necessarily imply that Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, contrary to the requirements of that directive, in particular an assessment of the effects on one or more of the factors set out in that provision other than that of material assets, does not entitle an individual to any compensation for pecuniary damage which is attributable to a decrease in the value of his material assets.
31 Taj nalaz, međutim, nužno ne podrazumijeva da članak 3. Direktive 85/337 treba tumačiti na način da činjenica da nije provedena procjena utjecaja na okoliš, osobito procjena utjecaja na jedan ili više faktora navedenih u tom članku koji nisu materijalna dobra, što je u suprotnosti sa zahtjevima te direktive, ne daje pojedincu pravo ni na kakvu naknadu imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegovih materijalnih dobara.
32 It must be recalled, from the outset, that the Court has already ruled that an individual may, where appropriate, rely on the duty to carry out an environmental impact assessment under Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and 4 thereof (see Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, paragraph 61).
32 Na samom početku valja podsjetiti da je Sud već odlučio da se, prema potrebi, pojedinac može pozvati na obvezu provođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš prema članku 2. stavku 1. Direktive 85/337, u vezi s njezinim člankom 1. stavcima 2. i 4. (vidjeti presudu od 7. siječnja 2004., Wells , C-201/02, Zb., str. I-723., t. 61.).
That directive thus confers on the individuals concerned a right to have the environmental effects of the project under examination assessed by the competent services and to be consulted in that respect.
Ta direktiva dotičnim pojedincima stoga daje pravo da utjecaj projekta na okoliš daju na procjenu nadležnim službama i da ih se s tim u vezi konzultira.
33 Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether Article 3 of Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, is intended, in the event of an omission to carry out an environmental impact assessment, to confer on individuals a right to compensation for pecuniary damage such as that invoked by Ms Leth.
33 U skladu s tim, valja preispitati želi li se člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, u vezi s njezinim člankom 2., u slučaju neprovođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš, pojedincu dati pravo na naknadu imovinske štete na koje se poziva J. Leth.
34 In that respect, it follows from the third and eleventh recitals in the preamble to Directive 85/337 that the purpose of that directive is to achieve one of the European Union's objectives in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life and that the effects of a project on the environment must be assessed in order to take account of the concerns to contribute by means of a better environment to the quality of life.
34 S tim u vezi iz treće i jedanaeste uvodne izjave Direktive 85/337 proizlazi da je svrha te direktive postići jedan od ciljeva Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša i kvalitete života i da utjecaj projekta na okoliš treba procijeniti kako bi se uzela u obzir nastojanja da se putem boljeg okoliša doprinese kvaliteti života.
35 In circumstances where exposure to noise resulting from a project covered by Article 4 of Directive 85/337 has significant effects on individuals, in the sense that a home affected by that noise is rendered less capable of fulfilling its function and the individuals' environment, quality of life and, potentially, health are affected, a decrease in the pecuniary value of that house may indeed be a direct economic consequence of such effects on the environment, this being a matter which must be examined on a case-by-case basis.
35 U okolnostima kada izloženost buci koja proizlazi iz nekog projekta obuhvaćenog člankom 4. Direktive 85/337 ima značajan utjecaj na neku osobu, u smislu da je zbog utjecaja te buke mogućnost da kuća u kojoj osoba živi ispunjava svoju funkciju smanjena i da to narušava kvalitetu života te osobe i, potencijalno, njezino zdravlje, smanjenje imovinske vrijednosti te kuće zaista može biti neposredna ekonomska posljedica takvog utjecaja na okoliš, što je pitanje koje treba razmatrati od slučaja do slučaja.
36 It must therefore be concluded that the prevention of pecuniary damage, in so far as that damage is the direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337.
36 Stoga valja zaključiti da je sprečavanje imovinske štete obuhvaćeno ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići Direktivom 85/337, ako je ta šteta neposredna ekonomska posljedica utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš.
As such economic damage is a direct consequence of such effects, it must be distinguished from economic damage which does not have its direct source in the environmental effects and which, therefore, is not covered by the objective of protection pursued by that directive, such as, inter alia, certain competitive disadvantages.
Budući da je ta ekonomska šteta neposredna posljedica tih djelovanja, valja je razlikovati od ekonomske štete čiji neposredni uzrok ne leži u utjecaju na okoliš i koja stoga nije obuhvaćena ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići tom direktivom, kao što su, između ostaloga, određene teškoće u pogledu konkurentnosti.
37 As regards a right to compensation for such pecuniary damage, it follows from the Court's settled case-law that, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, Member States are required to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of European Union law.
37 Što se tiče prava na naknadu takve imovinske štete, iz ustaljene prakse Suda proizlazi da, prema načelu lojalne suradnje utvrđenom u članku 4. stavku 3. UEU-a, države članice imaju obvezu otklanjanja protupravnih posljedica povreda prava Unije.
In that regard, the Court has already held that, in order to remedy the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of a project within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, it is for the national court to determine whether it is possible under national law for a consent already granted to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project in question to an assessment of its environmental impacts, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim compensation for the harm suffered (see Wells, paragraphs 66 to 69).
U tom smislu, Sud je već presudio da je, kako bi se ispravilo neprovođenje procjene utjecaja projekta na okoliš u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337, na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi je li prema unutarnjem pravu moguće već dani pristanak opozvati ili suspendirati kako bi se predmetni projekt podvrgnuo procjeni s obzirom na njegov utjecaj na okoliš u skladu sa zahtjevima iz Direktive 85/337 ili, alternativno, ako je pojedinac s time suglasan, postoji li mogućnost da taj pojedinac zatraži naknadu za pretrpljenu štetu (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Wells, t. od 66. do 69.).
38 The detailed procedural rules that are applicable are a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States, provided that they are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness) (see Wells, paragraph 67).
38 Postupci koji se primjenjuju stvar su unutarnjeg pravnog poretka svake države članice, prema načelu postupovne autonomije država članica, pod uvjetom da nisu manje povoljni od onih koji uređuju slične unutarnje situacije (načelo ekvivalentnosti) i da u praksi ne onemogućavaju ili pretjerano otežavaju ostvarivanje prava koja se dodjeljuju pravnim poretkom Unije (načelo djelotvornosti) (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Wells, t. 67.).
39 Thus, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the Member State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or damage caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of that loss or damage laid down by national law ensure compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness recalled in the previous paragraph (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 67).
39 Stoga, u okviru nacionalnog prava o odgovornosti država članica mora ispraviti posljedice prouzročenog gubitka ili štete ako uvjeti za naknadu tog gubitka ili štete predviđeni nacionalnim pravom osiguravaju poštovanje načela ekvivalentnosti i djelotvornosti spomenutih u prethodnoj točki (vidjeti presudu od 5. ožujka 1996., Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame, C-46/93 i C 48/93, Zb., str. I-1029., t. 67.).
40 It must, however, be pointed out that European Union law confers on individuals, under certain conditions, a right to compensation for damage caused by breaches of European Union law.
40 Međutim, valja napomenuti da pravo Unije pod određenim uvjetima pojedincima daje pravo na naknadu štete uzrokovane povredom prava Unije.
According to the Court's settled case-law, the principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the treaties on which the European Union is based (see Case C-429/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-12167, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).
Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, načelo odgovornosti države za gubitak ili štetu koju pojedincima uzrokuje povredom prava Unije koja joj se može pripisati, inherentno je sustavu ugovora na kojima se temelji Unija (vidjeti presudu od 25. studenoga 2010., Fuß, C‑429/09, Zb., str. I-12167., t. 45. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
41 In that respect, the Court has repeatedly held that individuals who have been harmed have a right to reparation if three conditions are met: the rule of European Union law infringed must be intended to confer rights on them; the breach of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals (see, Fuß, paragraph 47, and Case C-568/08 Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie and Others [2010] ECR I-12655, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited).
41 S tim u vezi, Sud je već više puta presudio da oštećeni pojedinci imaju pravo na odštetu kada se ispune tri uvjeta, odnosno kada povrijeđeno pravo Unije ima za cilj dodijeliti im prava, kada je povreda dovoljno ozbiljna i kada postoji kauzalna veza između te povrede i štete koju je pretrpio pojedinac (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Fußt., t. 47. i presudu od 9. prosinca 2010., Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie i dr., C-568/08, Zb., str. I-12655., t. 87. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
42 Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient to found a right in individuals to obtain redress on the basis of European Union law directly, although this does not mean that the Member State concerned cannot incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law (see Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, paragraph 66).
42 Ta su tri uvjeta potrebna i dovoljna da se utvrdi pravo pojedinaca na dobivanje odštete izravno na temelju prava Unije iako to ne znači da predmetne države članice ne mogu snositi odgovornost pod manje strogim uvjetima na temelju nacionalnog prava (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame t. 66.).
43 It is, in principle, for the national courts to apply the criteria, directly on the basis of European Union law, for establishing the liability of Member States for damage caused to individuals by breaches of European Union law, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court for the application of those criteria (see Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation [2006] ECR I-11753, paragraph 210 and the case-law cited).
43 Načelno, nacionalni sudovi trebaju primijeniti uvjete koji omogućuju da se utvrdi odgovornost država članica za štete nastale pojedincima povredom prava Unije, u skladu s uputama za tu primjenu koje im je dao Sud (vidjeti presudu od 12. prosinca 2006., Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C-446/04, Zb., str. I-11753., t. 210. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
44 In that regard, it has already been established, in paragraphs 32 and 36 of the present judgment, that Directive 85/337 confers on the individuals concerned a right to have the effects on the environment of the project under examination assessed by the competent services, and that pecuniary damage, in so far as it is a direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337.
44 U tom je pogledu u točkama 32. i 36. ove presude već utvrđeno da Direktiva 85/337 zainteresiranim pojedincima daje pravo da utjecaj predmetnog projekta na okoliš daju na procjenu nadležnim službama i da imovinska šteta, ako predstavlja neposrednu ekonomsku posljedicu utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš, bude obuhvaćena ciljem zaštite koji se želi postići Direktivom 85/337.
45 However, as indicated in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, the existence of a direct causal link between the breach in question and the damage sustained by the individuals is, in addition to the determination that the breach of European Union law is sufficiently serious, an indispensable condition governing the right to compensation.
45 Međutim, kako je navedeno u točki 41. ove presude, osim procjenom da je povreda pravila prava Unije dovoljno ozbiljna, pravo na naknadu nužno je uvjetovano i postojanjem izravne kauzalne veze između dotične povrede i štete koju pojedinci trpe.
The existence of that direct causal link is also a matter for the national courts to ascertain, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court.
Utvrđivanje postojanja te izravne kauzalne veze u skladu s uputama koje im je dao Sud isto je tako i na nacionalnim sudovima.
46 To that end, the nature of the rule breached must be taken into account.
46 U tom smislu, valja uzeti u obzir prirodu povrijeđenog pravila.
In the present case, that rule prescribes an assessment of the environmental impact of a public or private project, but does not lay down the substantive rules in relation to the balancing of the environmental effects with other factors or prohibit the completion of projects which are liable to have negative effects on the environment.
U ovom slučaju to pravilo propisuje procjenu utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš, ali ne utvrđuje materijalna pravila u vezi s uravnoteženjem utjecaja na okoliš s ostalim faktorima niti zabranjuje provedbu projekata koji bi mogli negativno utjecati na okoliš.
Those characteristics suggest that the breach of Article 3 of Directive 85/337, that is to say, in the present case, the failure to carry out the assessment prescribed by that article, does not, in principle, by itself constitute the reason for the decrease in the value of a property.
Te značajke ukazuju na to da povreda članka 3. Direktive 85/337, odnosno u ovom slučaju, neprovođenje procjene koju propisuje taj članak, u načelu, samo po sebi ne predstavlja razlog za smanjenje vrijednosti nekretnine.