natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Condou-Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
Komisija Europskih zajednica, koju zastupaju M. Condou-Durande, članica pravne službe, u svojstvu agenta, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu kod C. Gomez de la Cruza, člana iste službe, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
applicant,
tužiteljica,
supported by
koju podupiru:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by J.E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, with an address for service at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt,
Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske, koju zastupa J. E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, u svojstvu agenta, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu u sjedištu veleposlanstva Ujedinjene Kraljevine, 14, boulevard Roosevelt,
intervener,
intervenijent
v Hellenic Republic, represented by A. Samoni-Rantou, Legal Adviser in the Special Department for Community Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, E.-M. Mamouna, Assistant Lawyer in the same department, and G. Karipsiadis, Specialist Adviser in that department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix,
protiv Helenske Republike, koju zastupaju A. Samoni-Rantou, pravna savjetnica Posebnog odjela za europsko pravo Ministarstva vanjskih poslova, E. - M. Mamouna, sudski pripravnik iz istog odjela i G. Karipsiadis stručni savjetnik iz istog odjela, u svojstvu agenata, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu u sjedištu veleposlanstva Grčke, 117, Val Sainte-Croix
defendant,
tuženice,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular, by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous waste from the area concerned without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account EC own resources, a daily penalty payment of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment,
povodom tužbe radi utvrđivanja da je Helenska Republika povrijedila svoje obveze na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) jer nije poduzela neophodne mjere za postupanje u skladu s presudom Suda od 7. travnja 1992., Komisija/Grčka (C-45/91, Zb., str. I-2509.) te, posebno, jer još nije izradila niti provela planove i programe potrebne za zbrinjavanje otpada te toksičnog i opasnog otpada iz područja na koje se to odnosi i to na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu, kao i povodom naloga Helenskoj Republici da Komisiji na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice" uplati novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 24 600 ECU po danu za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih za postupanje u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave ove presude,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges,
u sastavu: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, predsjednica, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón i R. Schintgen, predsjednici vijeća, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. - P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (izvjestitelj), M. Wathelet i V. Skouris, suci,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator,
tajnik: L. Hewlett, administratorica,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 29 June 1999,
saslušavši očitovanja stranaka na raspravi održanoj 29. lipnja 1999.,
gives the following
donosi sljedeću:
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 November 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC) for a declaration that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular, by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous waste from the area concerned without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account EC own resources, a daily penalty payment of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment.
1 U tužbi koju je 14. studenoga 1997. Komisija Europskih zajednica podnijela tajništvu Suda na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) radi utvrđivanja da je Helenska Republika povrijedila svoje obveze na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) jer nije poduzela neophodne mjere za postupanje u skladu s presudom Suda od 7. travnja 1992., Komisija/Grčka (C-45/91, Zb., str. I-2509.) te, posebno, jer još nije izradila niti provela planove i programe potrebne za zbrinjavanje otpada te toksičnog i opasnog otpada iz područja na koje se to odnosi i to na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne štetiti okolišu, kao i povodom naloga Helenskoj Republici da Komisiji na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice" uplati novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 24 600 ECU po danu za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih za postupanje u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave ove presude.
2 In the versions in force on the expiry of the period of two months set in the reasoned opinion which culminated in the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations in Case C-45/91, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) and Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84, p. 43) provided for the harmonisation of national laws concerning the disposal of certain waste.
2 U verziji koja je na snazi po isteku roka od dva mjeseca utvrđenog u obrazloženom mišljenju u kojem je utvrđena povreda obveza u gore navedenom predmetu Komisija/Grčka, Direktiva Vijeća 75/442/EEZ od 15. srpnja 1975. o otpadu (SL L 194, str. 39.) i Direktiva Vijeća 78/319/EEZ od 20. ožujka 1978. o toksičnom i opasnom otpadu (SL L 84, str. 43.) predviđaju usklađivanje nacionalnih zakonodavstava u pogledu zbrinjavanja određenih vrsta otpada.
As is apparent from the third recital in the preamble to Directive 75/442 and the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 78/319 respectively, those directives were designed, in particular, to protect human health and safeguard the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, carriage, treatment, storage and tipping of such waste.
Kao što je vidljivo iz treće uvodne izjave Direktive 75/442 i četvrte uvodne izjave Direktive 78/319, cilj navedenih direktiva je posebno zaštita zdravlja ljudi i zaštita okoliša od štetnih učinaka prouzročenih prikupljanjem, prijevozom, obradom, skladištenjem i odlaganjem takvog otpada.
3 In order to ensure achievement of that objective, Directives 75/442 and 78/319 required the Member States to adopt certain provisions and to take certain other measures.
3 Kako bi se osiguralo postizanje tog cilja, direktivama 75/442 i 78/319 zahtijeva se da države članice donesu određene odredbe te poduzmu određene druge mjere.
4 First of all, under Article 4 of Directive 75/442 the Member States were to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste was disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
4 Prije svega, na temelju članka 4. Direktive 75/442 države članice trebale su poduzeti potrebne mjere kojima bi osigurale da se otpad zbrinjava na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu te posebno ne ugrožava vodu, zrak, tlo, životinje i biljke te ne uzrokuje neugodnosti u pogledu buke ili neugodnih mirisa i ne nanosi štetu lokalitetima i krajoliku.
5 Article 5(1) of Directive 78/319 provided that the Member States were to take the necessary measures to ensure that toxic and dangerous waste was disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.
5 U skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1. Direktive 78/319 države članice trebale su poduzeti potrebne mjere kojima bi osigurale da se toksičan i opasan otpad zbrinjava na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu te posebno ne ugrožava vodu, zrak, tlo, životinje i biljke te ne uzrokuje neugodnosti u pogledu buke ili neugodnih mirisa i ne nanosi štetu lokalitetima i krajoliku.
Under Article 5(2) of that directive, the Member States were in particular to take the necessary steps to prohibit the abandonment and uncontrolled discharge, tipping or carriage of toxic and dangerous waste, as well as its consignment to installations, establishments or undertakings other than those referred to in Article 9(1) of the directive.
Na temelju članka 5. stavka 2. navedene direktive države članice trebale su posebno poduzeti potrebne mjere za zabranu ostavljanja, nekontroliranog bacanja, odlaganja ili prijevoza toksičnog i opasnog otpada, kao i njegovog pohranjivanja u postrojenjima, ustanovama ili poduzećima koja nisu ona iz članka 9. stavka 1. navedene direktive.
6 Article 5 of Directive 75/442 required the Member States to establish or designate the competent authority or authorities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organisation, authorisation and supervision of waste disposal operations.
6 U skladu s člankom 5. Direktive 75/442 države članice imale su obvezu uspostaviti ili odrediti nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela odgovorna za planiranje, organizaciju, odobravanje i nadzor postupaka zbrinjavanja otpada na određenom području.
7 Under the first paragraph of Article 6 of Directive 75/442, the competent authority or authorities designated were required to draw up as soon as possible one or several plans relating, in particular, to the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of, general technical requirements, suitable disposal sites and any special arrangements for particular types of waste.
7 Na temelju članka 6. stavka 1. Direktive 75/442 određeno nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela trebala su u najkraćem roku izraditi jedan ili više planova koji se posebno odnose na vrstu i količinu otpada koji treba zbrinuti, opće tehničke uvjete, lokacije prikladne za zbrinjavanje kao i sve posebne odredbe za određene vrste otpada.
The second paragraph of that article provided that the plan or plans could, for example, cover the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out the disposal of waste, the estimated costs of the disposal operations, and appropriate measures to encourage rationalisation of the collection, sorting and treatment of waste.
Člankom 6. stavkom 2. te direktive predviđeno je da takav plan odnosno takvi planovi mogu primjerice obuhvatiti i fizičke ili pravne osobe ovlaštene za provedbu zbrinjavanja otpada, procjenu troškova postupaka zbrinjavanja te odgovarajuće mjere za poticanje racionalizacije prikupljanja, razvrstavanja i obrade otpada.
8 Under Article 6 of Directive 78/319, the Member States were to designate or establish the competent authority or authorities to be responsible, in a given area, for the planning, organisation, authorisation and supervision of operations for the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste.
8 Na temelju članka 6. Direktive 78/319 države članice trebale su odrediti ili uspostaviti nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela odgovorna za planiranje, organizaciju, odobravanje i nadzor postupaka zbrinjavanja toksičnog i opasnog otpada na određenom području.
9 The first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 78/319 stated that the competent authorities had to draw up, and keep up to date, plans for the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste.
9 U skladu s člankom 12. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. Direktive 78/319 nadležna tijela trebala su izraditi i ažurirati planove za zbrinjavanje toksičnog i opasnog otpada.
Those plans were to cover in particular the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of, the methods of disposal, specialised treatment centres where necessary, and suitable disposal sites.
Ti su planovi posebno trebali obuhvatiti vrstu i količinu otpada koji treba zbrinuti, metode zbrinjavanja, centre za posebnu obradu, prema potrebi, te lokacije prikladne za zbrinjavanje.
10 In accordance with Article 145 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Hellenic Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1979 L 291, p. 17, hereinafter the Act of Accession), the Hellenic Republic had until 1 January 1981 to put into effect the measures necessary to comply with Directives 75/442 and 78/319.
10 U skladu s člankom 145. Akta o uvjetima pristupanja Helenske Republike i prilagodbama ugovora (SL L 291, str. 17., u daljnjem tekstu: Akt o pristupanju) Helenska je Republika trebala do 1. siječnja 1981. provesti mjere potrebne za usklađivanje s odredbama direktiva 75/442 i 78/319.
11 In its judgment in Case C-45/91, the Court held that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Directive 75/442 and Articles 5 and 12 of Directive 78/319.
11 U navedenoj presudi Komisija/Grčka Sud je utvrdio da je Helenska Republika povrijedila svoje obveze na temelju članaka 4. i 6. Direktive 75/442 i članaka 5. i 12. Direktive 78/319.
12 According to that judgment, the Commission, having become aware of problems posed by the disposal of waste in the prefecture of Chania in Crete (Greece), asked the Greek Government to explain the situation.
12 U skladu s tom presudom Komisija je, nakon što je postala svjesna nekih problema nastalih odlaganjem otpada u prefekturi Chania na Kreti (Grčka), zatražila od grčke vlade da objasni tu situaciju.
In particular, it asked for information regarding the existence of a rubbish tip at the mouth of the river Kouroupitos.
Zatražila je prije svega da vlada dostavi informacije o postojanju javnog odlagališta otpada na ušću rijeke Kouroupitos.
13 The Greek Government replied that it was going to put an end to the operation of that tip and create new disposal sites.
13 Grčka je vlada odgovorila da namjerava zatvoriti to odlagalište i otvoriti nove lokacije za zbrinjavanje otpada.
However, it stated that, pending completion of the necessary work on the infrastructure for those new sites, the waste from the prefecture of Chania would continue to be deposited in the Kouroupitos tip until August 1988.
Međutim, istaknula je da će se do završetka potrebnih radova na infrastrukturi tih novih lokacija otpad iz prefekture Chania i dalje odlagati na odlagalištu Kouroupitos do kolovoza 1988.
14 The Commission considered that reply to be unsatisfactory and sent the Hellenic Republic a letter of formal notice.
14 Smatrajući da taj odgovor nije odgovarajući, Komisija je Helenskoj Republici poslala pismo opomene.
In that letter it stated that, in its view, the Hellenic Republic, contrary to Article 4 of Directive 75/442 and Article 5 of Directive 78/319, had not taken any measures enabling the waste in question to be disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment.
U toj je opomeni navela kako smatra da protivno članku 4. Direktive 75/442 i članku 5. Direktive 78/319 Helenska Republika nije poduzela nikakve mjere kako bi se predmetni otpad zbrinuo na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu.
It also stated that the Hellenic Republic had still not drawn up either the waste disposal plan prescribed by Article 6 of Directive 75/442 or the plan for the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste required by Article 12 of Directive 78/319.
Navela je i da ta država članica još uvijek nije izradila plan zbrinjavanja otpada propisan člankom 6. Direktive 75/442 ni plan zbrinjavanja toksičnog i opasnog otpada predviđen člankom 12. Direktive 78/319.
Nor had it taken any measure regarding the disposal of waste as required by Article 7 of Directive 75/442.
Ona također nije poduzela nikakve mjere za zbrinjavanje otpada određene člankom 7. Direktive 75/442.
The Commission concluded that the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 13 of Directive 75/442 and Articles 5, 6, 12 and 21 of Directive 78/319.
Komisija je zaključila da je Helenska Republika povrijedila obveze na temelju članaka 4., 5., 6., 7. i 13. Direktive 75/442 i članaka 5., 6., 12. i 21. Direktive 78/319.
15 In their reply to that letter, the Greek authorities referred to the opposition of the population of Chania to the plan to create new landfill sites and stated that the authorities in Chania therefore envisaged, in the medium term, the creation of landfill sites in smaller towns and, in the long term, the incineration and recycling of refuse.
15 U svojem odgovoru na tu opomenu grčke su vlasti ukazale na činjenicu da se stanovništvo Chanie usprotivilo planu otvaranja novih lokacija za odlaganje otpada te navele da su zbog toga vlasti Chanie srednjoročno predvidjele otvaranje lokacija za odlaganje otpada u manjim gradovima i, dugoročno, spaljivanje i recikliranje otpada.
16 On 5 March 1990 the Commission issued a reasoned opinion which it sent to the Hellenic Republic.
16 Komisija je 5. ožujka 1990. sastavila obrazloženo mišljenje koje je poslala Helenskoj Republici.
In the reasoned opinion, the Commission expressed the view that the Greek authorities had failed to fulfil their obligations arising from the Treaty since they were still at the stage of preparing the necessary measures to comply with Directives 75/442 and 78/319 in the area of Chania.
U obrazloženom mišljenju iznijela je stav prema kojem su grčke vlasti povrijedile svoje obveze koje proizlaze iz Ugovora budući da su još uvijek u fazi pripreme mjera potrebnih za usklađivanje s direktivama 75/442 i 78/319 u prefekturi Chania.
17 In the Treaty infringement proceedings which it brought against the Hellenic Republic, the Commission submitted that the Greek authorities had taken no measure enabling waste from the Chania area to be disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment.
17 U postupku zbog povrede obveze koji je pokrenula protiv Helenske Republike Komisija je istaknula da grčka tijela nisu poduzela nikakve mjere kako bi se otpad iz Chanije zbrinuo na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu.
It added that the competent authorities had not taken any steps to implement a proper plan which would lead to the correct management of waste in that area in accordance with a timetable.
Ona dodaje da nadležne vlasti nisu donijele nikakve odredbe za provedbu odgovarajućeg plana koji bi doprinio pravilnom gospodarenju otpadom u tom području u skladu s vremenskim rasporedom.
It made the same criticisms with regard to the toxic and dangerous waste from the area, in respect of which the Greek authorities had similarly not taken any appropriate measures or laid down a disposal plan.
Komisija je iste kritike iznijela i u vezi s toksičnim i opasnim otpadom iz tog područja, u pogledu kojeg grčka tijela nisu poduzela odgovarajuće mjere niti izradile plan njegovog zbrinjavanja.
18 In reply, the Hellenic Republic stated that several studies had been undertaken between 1989 and 1991 regarding the management and recycling of waste from the Chania area.
18 U svom je odgovoru Helenska Republika navela da je između 1989. i 1991. provedeno više studija o gospodarenju i recikliranju otpada iz prefekture Chania.
However, implementation of the planned programme had been suspended because of the opposition of the local population.
Međutim, provedba planiranog programa obustavljena je zbog protivljenja lokalnog stanovništva.
19 In paragraph 21 of its judgment in Case C-45/91, the Court stated that, pursuant to Article 145 of the Act of Accession, Directives 75/442 and 78/319 should have been implemented in Greece by 1 January 1981 at the latest.
19 U točki 21. navedene presude Komisija/Grčka Sud je utvrdio da su u skladu s člankom 145. Akta o pristupanju direktive 75/442 i 78/319 u Grčkoj trebale biti provedene najkasnije do 1. siječnja 1981.
It also pointed out that, in accordance with settled case-law, a Member State may not plead internal circumstances, such as difficulties of implementation which emerge at the stage when a Community measure is put into effect, to justify a failure to comply with obligations and time-limits laid down by Community law.
Također je istaknuo da se u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom država članica ne može pozvati na unutarnje okolnosti poput poteškoća u provođenju akta Zajednice, kako bi opravdala povredu obveza i vremenskih rokova koji proizlaze iz prava Zajednice.
20 The Court accordingly held:
20 Slijedom toga Sud je presudio:
By failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that in the area of Chania waste and toxic and dangerous waste are disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and by failing to draw up for that area plans for the disposal of waste and of toxic and dangerous waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4 and 6 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, and Articles 5 and 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste.
„Helenska Republika povrijedila je obveze na temelju članaka 4. i 6. Direktive Vijeća 75/442/EEZ od 15. srpnja 1975. o otpadu i članaka 5. i 12. Direktive Vijeća 78/319/EEZ od 20. ožujka 1978. o toksičnom i opasnom otpadu jer nije poduzela potrebne mjere kojima bi u prefekturi Chania osigurala zbrinjavanje otpada te toksičnog i opasnog otpada na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu te izradu planova ili programa za njegovo zbrinjavanje."
21 The Commission was not notified of any measures to comply with the judgment in Case C-45/91, and so it reiterated in a letter of 11 October 1993 to the Greek authorities that the Court had found against the Hellenic Republic in that judgment and pointed out that no measure to comply with the judgment had been communicated to it.
21 Komisiji nije poslana obavijest o mjerama za postupanje u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka pa je ona dopisom od 11. listopada 1993. upućenim grčkim tijelima podsjetila da je tom presudom Sud osudio Helensku Republiku te naglasila da joj nije poslana nikakva obavijest o mjerama za postupanje u skladu s tom presudom.
22 By letter of 24 August 1994 the Greek Government informed the Commission that the competent body for waste management at local level had obtained preliminary approval for two landfill sites at Kopinadi and Vardia.
22 Pismom od 24. kolovoza 1994. grčka je vlada obavijestila Komisiju da je tijelo nadležno za gospodarenje otpadom na lokalnoj razini dobilo „preliminarno odobrenje" za dvije lokacije za odlaganje otpada u mjestima Kopinadi i Vardia.