natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
46 Under the system set up by Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/35, as a rule, it is for the operator who caused the damage to put forward proposals for the remedial measures which it considers appropriate to the situation.
46 U okviru sustava iz članaka 6. i 7. Direktive 2004/35, u pravilu je na operateru koji je prouzročio štetu u okolišu da predloži mjere otklanjanja koje smatra primjerenima situaciji.
In view of the knowledge which the operator is deemed to have as regards the nature of the damage to the environment caused by his activities, such a system may enable appropriate environmental remedial measures to be identified and implemented swiftly.
S obzirom na znanje za koje se smatra da ga operater posjeduje u pogledu karaktera štete u okolišu uzrokovane njegovim djelatnostima, takvim se sustavom može omogućiti brzo utvrđivanje i poduzimanje primjerenih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu.
47 Accordingly, under Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/35, where environmental damage has occurred, the operator must, without delay, inform the competent authority and take, inter alia, the necessary remedial measures, in accordance with Article 7 of the directive.
47 U skladu s time, prema članku 6. stavku 1. Direktive 2004/35, ako je došlo do štete u okolišu, operater bez odgode obavješćuje nadležno tijelo i poduzima, inter alia, potrebne mjere otklanjanja u skladu s člankom 7. te Direktive.
48 However, Articles 6(2) of Directive 2004/35 provides that the competent authority may, at any time, inter alia, require the operator to take the necessary remedial measures, give him the instructions to be followed in order to implement those measures or indeed, as a means of last resort, itself take those measures.
48 Međutim, člankom 6. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno je da nadležno tijelo, inter alia, u bilo kojem trenutku može zatražiti od operatera da poduzme potrebne mjere otklanjanja, izdati operateru upute o potrebnim mjerama otklanjanja koje treba poduzeti ili u krajnjem slučaju samo poduzeti potrebne mjere otklanjanja.
49 Moreover, Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35 provides that the competent authority is to decide which remedial measures are to be implemented in accordance with Annex II to the directive, and do so with the cooperation of the relevant operator, as required.
49 Osim toga, člankom 7. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno je da nadležno tijelo odlučuje koje će se mjere otklanjanja primjenjivati u skladu s Prilogom II. direktivi i to, prema potrebi, u suradnji s dotičnim operaterom.
50 According to Article 11 of Directive 2004/35, the duty to determine which remedial measures should be taken with reference to Annex II to the directive rests, in any event and as a means of last resort, with the competent authority.
50 Prema članku 11. Direktive 2004/35 obveza određivanja mjera otklanjanja koje treba poduzeti prema Prilogu II. direktivi u svakoj situaciji i u krajnjem slučaju ostaje na nadležnom tijelu.
51 In those circumstances, as the Advocate General pointed out at points 141 and 142 of her Opinion, the competent authority must be regarded as also being entitled to alter environmental remedial measures previously adopted, and to do so on its own initiative, that is, even without an initial proposal from the operator.
51 U tim okolnostima, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica istaknula u točkama 141. i 142. svojeg mišljenja, valja smatrati da nadležno tijelo ima pravo izmijeniti prethodno usvojene mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu, te to učiniti na vlastitu inicijativu, to jest, čak i bez početnog prijedloga operatera.
In fact, that authority may find in practice, in particular, that it is necessary to take measures in addition to those already adopted, and even reach the conclusion that the measures originally decided upon are ineffective and that other measures are necessary to remedy specific environmental pollution.
Zapravo, u praksi nadležno tijelo može uvidjeti osobito da je potrebno poduzeti dodatne mjere, uz one već usvojene, pa čak i zaključiti da izvorno usvojene mjere nisu djelotvorne te da su za otklanjanje određenog onečišćenja okoliša potrebne druge mjere.
52 However, recital 24 in the preamble to Directive 2004/35 states that, in implementing and enforcing effective means for the application of the environmental liability mechanism laid down by the directive, the legitimate interests of the relevant operators and other interested parties must be adequately safeguarded.
52 Međutim, u uvodnoj izjavi 24. Direktive 2004/35 navodi se da pri primjeni i provedbi djelotvornih sredstava za primjenu mehanizma odgovornosti za okoliš utvrđenog tom Direktivom treba osigurati odgovarajuću zaštitu legitimnih interesa relevantnih operatera i ostalih zainteresiranih strana.
53 Whereas Article 7(4) of Directive 2004/35 requires the competent authority, in all circumstances, to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land remedial measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account, Article 7, in particular Article 7(2), is not worded in the same terms with regard to the operator affected by the remedial measure which the authority intends to impose on him.
53 Dok se člankom 7. stavkom 4. Direktive 2004/35 od nadležnog tijela traži da [u svim okolnostima] poziva osobito osobe na čijem će se zemljištu provoditi mjere otklanjanja da daju primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir, članak 7., a osobito njegov stavak 2., ne kaže isto u pogledu operatera na kojeg se odnose mjere otklanjanja koje mu tijelo namjerava nametnuti.
54 However, the principle of the right to be heard, whose observance is ensured by the Court, requires a public authority to hear interested parties before adopting a decision which concerns them (see Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P Land Oberösterreich and Austria v Commission [2007] ECR I-7141, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
54 Međutim, , Sud osigurava poštovanje načela saslušanja stranke, a to načelo zahtijeva da javno tijelo sasluša zainteresirane strane prije donošenja odluke koja ih se tiče (vidjeti presudu od 13. rujna 2007., Land Oberösterreich i Austrija/Komisija, C-439/05 P i C-454/05 P, Zb., str. I-7141., t. 35. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
55 Accordingly, even though Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35 does not expressly state that the relevant operator has the right to be heard in all circumstances, it must be acknowledged that that provision cannot be interpreted as meaning that, in determining remedial measures, including those referred to in Article 6(2)(c) and (d) of the directive, the competent authority is not required to give the operator the opportunity to be heard.
55 U skladu s tim, iako se u članku 7. stavku 2. Direktive 2004/35 ne navodi izričito da dotični operater ima pravo na očitovanje u svim okolnostima, mora se priznati da se ta odredba ne može tumačiti tako da znači da pri određivanju mjera otklanjanja, uključujući one iz članka 6. stavka 2. podstavaka (c) i (d) te direktive, nadležno tijelo ne mora operateru dati mogućnost da se očituje.
56 It follows that, in order to alter substantially environmental recovery measures already approved by the competent authority, which the authority is authorised to do under Directive 2004/35, Article 7(2) of the directive requires the authority to give the operators on whom such measures are imposed the opportunity to be heard, except where the urgency of the environmental situation requires immediate action on the part of the competent authority.
56 Iz toga slijedi da se, da bi nadležno tijelo značajno izmijenilo mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje je već odobrilo, na što u skladu s Direktivom 2004/35 ima pravo, člankom 7. stavkom 2. te Direktive zahtijeva od tijela da operaterima kojima te mjere nameće pruži priliku za očitovanje, osim ako zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu nadležno tijelo mora djelovati bez odgode.
Moreover, Article 7(4) of the directive provides that the competent authority is required to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land such measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account.
Osim toga, u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 4. te direktive nadležno tijelo dužno je pozvati osobito osobe na čijem će se zemljištu te mjere provoditi da daju primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir.
57 As regards the factors to be taken into account in the procedure for implementing the necessary recovery measures, it is apparent from Articles 7(2) and 11(2) of Directive 2004/35 that the competent authority is required to assess the significance of the damage and to determine such measures with reference to Annex II to the directive.
57 U pogledu čimbenika koje treba uzeti u obzir u postupku primjene potrebnih mjera otklanjanja, iz članka 7. stavka 2. i članka 11. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/35 proizlazi da je na nadležnom tijelu da procijeni značaj štete i odredi takve mjere, i to s obzirom na Prilog II. toj direktivi.
58 Annex II to Directive 2004/35 sets out a common framework to be followed by the competent authority in order to choose the most appropriate measures to ensure that environmental damage is remedied.
58 U Prilogu II. Direktivi 2004/35 utvrđen je zajednički okvir koji nadležno tijelo treba primjenjivati kod odabira najprimjerenijih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu. U odjeljku 1.3.1.
Section 1.3.1. of the Annex states that the remedial options `should be evaluated, using best available technologies' based on a range of criteria set out in that section.
Priloga navodi se da mogućnosti otklanjanja štete „treba procijeniti, primjenjujući najbolje raspoložive tehnologije" na temelju niza kriterija utvrđenih u tom odjeljku.
59 The legislature of the European Union has not set out in a precise and detailed manner the specific methodology to be followed by the competent authority in determining recovery measures, principally because, as is apparent from recital 24 in the preamble to Directive 2004/35, in order to discharge the duty imposed on it under the system set up by the directive, the competent authority must have appropriate discretionary powers to assess the significance of the damage and to determine which remedial measures should be taken.
59 Zakonodavac Unije nije precizno i detaljno utvrdio posebnu metodologiju koje se nadležno tijelo treba pridržavati kod određivanja mjera otklanjanja štete, prvenstveno zato jer, kako proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 24. Direktive 2004/35, radi obavljanja dužnosti koja mu je povjerena u okviru sustava iz te direktive, nadležno tijelo mora imati odgovarajuće diskrecijsko pravo kako bi procijenilo značaj štete i odredilo koje mjere otklanjanja bi trebalo poduzeti.
However, for that purpose, Annex II to the directive sets out a number of factors considered relevant by the legislature, which must therefore be taken into account by the competent authority, although the implications of those factors for the authority in a specific instance of pollution are not stated.
Međutim, u tu svrhu u Prilogu II. direktivi utvrđen je niz čimbenika koje zakonodavac smatra bitnima pa ih stoga nadležno tijelo treba uzeti u obzir, iako nisu navedene posljedice tih čimbenika za tijelo u konkretnom slučaju onečišćenja.
60 Where the competent authority is called upon, in the performance of the duties entrusted to it by the directive in question, to make complex assessments, its discretion applies also, to a certain extent, to the finding of facts underlying its action (see, by analogy, Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 25; Case C-120/97 Upjohn [1999] ECR I-223, paragraph 34; and Case C-425/08 Enviro Tech (Europe) [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 62).
60 U tom smislu, kada je nadležno tijelo pozvano da u izvršavanju dužnosti koje su mu povjerene predmetnom direktivom provede složene procjene, njegovo diskrecijsko pravo primjenjuje se, do određene mjere, i na utvrđivanje činjenica na kojima se temelji njegovo djelovanje (vidjeti po analogiji presude od 29. listopada 1980., Roquette Frères/Vijeće, 138/79, Zb., str. 3333., t. 25.; od 21. siječnja 1999., Upjohn, C-120/97, Zb., str. I-223., t. 34. i od 15. listopada 2009., Enviro Tech (Europe), C-425/08, Zb., I-10035., t. 62.)
61 In exercising that discretion, the competent authority is nevertheless required, in such circumstances, to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case (see, by analogy, Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I-5469, paragraph 14, and Case C-405/07 P Netherlands v Commission [2008] ECR I-8301, paragraph 56).
61 Osim toga, primjenjujući svoje diskrecijsko pravo nadležno tijelo u takvim okolnostima ipak ima obvezu pažljivo i nepristrano ispitati sve relevantne elemente konkretnog predmeta (vidjeti po analogiji presude od 21. studenog 1991., Technische Universität München, C-269/90, Zb., str. I-5469., t. 14. i od 6. studenog 2008., Nizozemska/Komisija, C-405/07 P, Zb., str. I-8301., t. 56.).
62 In those circumstances, where the question arises as to the choice between different remedial options, which is the case where the competent authority intends to alter remedial measures which it had adopted previously, the authority is required, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35, in conjunction with Section 1.3.1 of Annex II to the directive, to assess each of those options on the basis, inter alia, of the criteria set out in that section.
62 U tim okolnostima, ako se postavi pitanje odabira između različitih mogućnosti otklanjanja, što je slučaj ako nadležno tijelo namjerava izmijeniti mjere za otklanjanje štete koje je prethodno usvojilo, na tijelom je tijelu u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 u vezi s odjeljkom 1.3.1. Priloga II. direktivi da procijeni te mogućnosti na temelju, osobito, kriterija utvrđenih u tom odjeljku.
63 Accordingly, where the competent authority intends to alter substantially measures for remedying environmental damage which were chosen at the conclusion of a procedure carried out on a consultative basis with the operators concerned and which have already been implemented or begun to be put into effect, that is, where the remedial option has been changed, that authority is required, in principle, to take account of the criteria set out at Section 1.3.1. of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 and, in accordance with Article 11(4) of the directive, must also state in the decision which it adopts in that connection the exact grounds on which its choice is based and, where appropriate, the grounds which justify the fact that there was no need for a detailed examination in the light of those criteria or that it was not possible to carry out such an examination due, for example, to the urgency of the environmental situation.
63 U skladu s tim, ako nadležno tijelo namjerava bitno izmijeniti mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje su odabrane nakon postupka provedenog na osnovi savjetovanja s dotičnim operaterima, a koje su već provedene ili su se počele provoditi, to jest, ako je promijenjen način otklanjanja, tijelo je u načelu dužno uzeti u obzir kriterije utvrđene u odjeljku 1.3.1. Priloga II. Direktivi 2004/35 i, u skladu s člankom 11. stavkom 4. te direktive, u odluci koju donese u vezi s time navesti i točne razloge svog odabira te, prema potrebi, razloge kojima se opravdava činjenica da nije bilo potrebe za detaljnom procjenom s obzirom na te kriterije ili da takvu procjenu nije bilo moguće provesti, na primjer zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu.
64 In particular, the competent authority must ensure that it is in fact possible, as a result of the option finally chosen, to achieve the best results from an environmental point of view, without thereby causing the operators concerned to incur manifestly disproportionate costs by comparison with those they had or would have had to incur in connection with the first option chosen by that authority.
64 Nadležno tijelo osobito treba osigurati da se primjenom konačno odabrane opcije stvarno mogu postići najbolji rezultati sa stajališta okoliša, a da se time dotičnim operaterima ne uzrokuju jasno neproporcionalni troškovi u usporedbi s onima koje su već imali ili bi ih imali u vezi s prvom mogućnošću koju je to tijelo odabralo.
However, such considerations are irrelevant where the authority can demonstrate that the option originally chosen was, in any event, inappropriate for the purpose of restoring, rehabilitating or replacing damaged natural resources and/or impaired services, for the purpose of Article 2(11) of Directive 2004/35.
Međutim, takva su razmatranja nebitna ako tijelo može dokazati da je izvorno odabrana mogućnost bila u svakom slučaju neprimjerena za ponovnu uspostavu stanja, sanaciju ili zamjenu oštećenih prirodnih dobara i/ili oštećenih funkcija u smislu članka 2. stavka 11. Direktive 2004/35.
65 Lastly, a Member State cannot validly rely on Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/35, that is, the pursuit of the same objective of protecting the environment as laid down in the directive (see Case C-6/03 Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe [2005] ECR I-2753, paragraph 41), if it maintains or adopts provisions or authorises a practice enabling the competent authority to disregard, first, the operators' right to be heard and the obligation to invite the persons on whose land remedial measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and, second, the obligation to carry out a detailed examination of the potential options for environmental recovery.
65 Konačno, država članica ne može valjano isticati članak 16. stavak 1. Direktive 2004/35, to jest, postizanje istog cilja zaštite okoliša kao što je onaj utvrđen u Direktivi (vidjeti presudu od 14. travnja 2005., Deponiezweckverband Eiterköpfe, C-6/03, Zb., str. I-2753., t. 41.), ako zadrži ili donese odredbe ili odobri praksu kojom se nadležnom tijelu omogućuje da zanemari, prvo, pravo operatera da se očituju i obvezu pozivanja osoba na čijem će se zemljištu te mjere provoditi da dostave svoje primjedbe i, drugo, obvezu izvođenja detaljne procjene mogućnosti otklanjanja štete u okolišu.
66 The operators' right to be heard and the right of the persons whose land is affected by remedial measures to submit their observations clearly constitute a minimum level of protection guaranteed by Directive 2004/35, which cannot reasonably be called into question.
66 Naime, pravo operatera da se očituju i pravo osoba na čije se zemljište mjere otklanjanja odnose da daju svoje primjedbe čine minimalnu razinu zaštite zajamčene Direktivom 2004/35, koju nije opravdano dovoditi u pitanje.
Moreover, a decision on the choice of an environmental remedial option adopted by the competent authority without carrying out a detailed examination of the situation in the light of the criteria set out at Section 1.3.1 of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 could lead, contrary to the objectives laid down in the directive, to an inappropriate assessment of the significance of the damage and/or the remedial measures which should be taken.
Osim toga, donošenje odluke o odabiru mogućnosti otklanjanja štete u okolišu koju nadležno tijelo donese bez provođenja detaljne procjene situacije s obzirom na kriterije utvrđene u odjeljku 1.3.1. Priloga II. Direktivi 2004/35 moglo bi, suprotno ciljevima utvrđenima u toj Direktivi, dovesti do neodgovarajuće procjene značaja štete i/ili mjera otklanjanja koje treba poduzeti
67 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first two questions is that Articles 7 and 11(4) of Directive 2004/35, in conjunction with Annex II to the directive, must be interpreted as permitting the competent authority to alter substantially measures for remedying environmental damage which were chosen at the conclusion of a procedure carried out on a consultative basis with the operators concerned and which have already been implemented or begun to be put into effect.
67 S obzirom na navedeno, na prva dva pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 7. i članak 11. stavak 4. Direktive 2004/35 u vezi s Prilogom II. toj Direktivi treba tumačiti tako da nadležnom tijelu dopuštaju značajnu izmjenu mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje su odabrane nakon postupka provedenog na osnovi savjetovanja s dotičnim operaterima, a koje su već provedene ili su se počele provoditi.
However, in order to adopt such a decision, that authority:
Međutim, da bi donijelo takvu odluku, to tijelo:
is required to give the operators on whom such measures are imposed the opportunity to be heard, except where the urgency of the environmental situation requires immediate action on the part of the competent authority;
dužno je operaterima kojima se te mjere nameću dati priliku da se očituju, osim ako zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu nadležno tijelo mora djelovati bez odgode;
is also required to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land those measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account; and
dužno je isto tako pozvati osobito osobe na čijem će se zemljištu provoditi te mjere da daju svoje primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir;
must take account of the criteria set out in Section 1.3.1 of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 and state in its decision the grounds on which its choice is based, and, where appropriate, the grounds which justify the fact that there was no need for a detailed examination in the light of those criteria or that it was not possible to carry out such an examination due, for example, to the urgency of the environmental situation.
i - mora voditi računa o kriterijima utvrđenima u odjeljku 1.3.1. Priloga II. Direktivi 2004/35 i u svojoj odluci navesti razloge svog odabira te, prema potrebi, razloge kojima se opravdava činjenica da nije bilo potrebe za detaljnom procjenom s obzirom na te kriterije ili da takvu procjenu nije bilo moguće provesti, na primjer zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu.
68 By its third question, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia asks whether Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which permits the competent authority to make the exercise by operators at whom environmental recovery measures are directed of the right to use their land subject to the condition that they carry out the works required by the authority, even though that land is not affected by those measures because it has already been decontaminated or has never been polluted.
68 Trećim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita treba li Direktivu 2004/35 tumačiti tako da joj je protivan nacionalni propis koji nadležnom tijelu dopušta da ostvarivanje prava operatera na koje se odnose mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu na uporabu vlastitog zemljišta uvjetuje izvršenjem radova koje to tijelo zahtijeva, čak i ako se te mjere ne odnose na to zemljište budući da je već dekontaminirano ili nikad nije bilo onečišćeno.
69 The applicants in the main proceedings submit that, where land has been decontaminated or has never been polluted, the competent authority does not in any way have the power to make use of that land subject to the carrying out of environmental remedial measures on another site, in the present case the seafront and the seabed.
69 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku tvrde da, ako je zemljište već dekontaminirano ili nikad nije bilo onečišćeno, nadležno tijelo uopće nema ovlasti uvjetovati pravo uporabe zemljišta izvršenjem mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu na drugom području, u ovom slučaju na morskoj obali i morskom dnu.
Such a practice would impose an excessive restriction on their right to property and would be contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Takvom bi se praksom nametnulo pretjerano ograničenje njihovog prava vlasništva, a ta bi praksa bila protivna načelu proporcionalnosti.
An operator's own interest in a remedial environmental measure being implemented lies precisely in the prospect of productive activity being resumed on his land.
Vlastiti interes operatera u provođenju mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu leži upravo u očekivanju da na svojem zemljištu nastavi produktivnu djelatnost.
Moreover, the land of the applicants in the main proceedings has already been decontaminated or indeed has never been polluted.
Osim toga, zemljište tužitelja u glavnom postupku već je dekontaminirano ili stvarno nikada nije bilo onečišćeno.