natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"… general principles for the assessment of environmental effects should be introduced with a view to supplementing and coordinating development consent procedures governing public and private projects likely to have a major effect on the environment;"
"[…] za procjenu utjecaja na okoliš trebalo bi uvesti opća načela radi dopunjavanja i koordiniranja postupaka za davanje suglasnosti kojima se reguliraju javni i privatni projekti koji bi mogli imati znatan utjecaj na okoliš;"
"… development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after prior assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of these projects has been carried out; … this assessment must be conducted on the basis of the appropriate information supplied by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the people who may be concerned by the project in question;"
"[…] suglasnost za javne i privatne projekte koji bi mogli imati značajan utjecaj na okoliš trebalo bi dati tek po provođenju prethodne procjene vjerojatnih značajnih utjecaja tih projekata na okoliš; […] ta se procjena mora provesti na temelju odgovarajućih informacija koje dostavi investitor, koje mogu dopuniti nadležna tijela i javnost kojih se predmetni projekt može ticati;"
… the effects of a project on the environment must be assessed in order to take account of concerns to protect human health, to contribute by means of a better environment to the quality of life, to ensure maintenance of the diversity of species and to maintain the reproductive capacity of the ecosystem as a basic resource for life’.
[…] treba procijeniti utjecaje projekta na okoliš s ciljem da se vodi računa o pitanju zaštite zdravlja ljudi, da se kroz bolji okoliš poboljša kvaliteta života, da se osigura održavanje raznolikosti vrsta i održi sposobnost obnavljanja ekosustava kao osnovnog resursa za život”. [neslužbeni prijevod]
4 Article 1 of Directive 85/337 states:
4 Članak 1. Direktive 85/337 glasi:
‘1. This Directive shall apply to the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.
„1. Ova se Direktiva primjenjuje na procjenu utjecaja na okoliš javnih i privatnih projekata koji bi mogli imati značajne učinke na okoliš.
“project” means:
„projekt” znači:
– the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,
– izvođenje građevinskih radova ili ostalih instalacija ili sustava,,
"– other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources;"
"– ostali zahvati u prirodnom okruženju i krajobrazu, uključujući i one koje obuhvaćaju vađenje mineralnih resursa;"
‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. These projects are defined in Article 4.’
„ Države članice usvajaju sve potrebne mjere kako bi se prije davanja odobrenja osiguralo da se projekti koji bi mogli imati značajne učinke na okoliš, između ostalog na temelju njihove prirode, veličine ili lokacije, podvrgnu obvezi ishođenja odobrenja za provedbu projekta i procjeni u pogledu njihovih učinaka. Ti su projekti utvrđeni u članku 4.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
6 Article 3 of Directive 85/337 states:
6 Članak 3. Direktive 85/337 glasi:
‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
„U procjeni utjecaja na okoliš na odgovarajući se način utvrđuju, opisuju i procjenjuju, u svjetlu svakog pojedinačnog slučaja i u skladu s člancima od 4. do 11., izravni i neizravni utjecaji predmetnog projekta na sljedeće čimbenike:
"– human beings, fauna and flora;"
"– ljudska bića, faunu i floru;"
"– soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;"
"– tlo, vodu, zrak, klimu i krajobraz;"
"– material assets and the cultural heritage;"
"– materijalna dobra i kulturno nasljeđe;"
– the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents.’
– interakciju između čimbenika navedenih u prvoj, drugoj i trećoj alineji.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
‘1. Subject to Article 2(3), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
„1. U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 3., projekti koji su navedeni u Prilogu I. podliježu procjeni u skladu s člancima od 5. do 10.
3. When a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account.’
3. Kada se provodi pregled pojedinačnih slučajeva ili se utvrđuju granične vrijednosti ili kriteriji u smislu stavka 2., uzimaju se u obzir relevantni kriteriji za odabir navedeni u Prilogu III.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
‘1. In the case of projects which, pursuant to Article 4, must be subjected to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the developer supplies in an appropriate form the information specified in Annex IV …
„1. U slučaju projekata koji na temelju članka 4. podliježu procjeni utjecaja na okoliš u skladu s člancima od 5. do 10., države članice donose potrebne mjere kako bi osigurale da nositelj projekta dostavi u odgovarajućem obliku informacije navedene u Prilogu IV. […]
– the data required to identify and assess the main effects which the project is likely to have on the environment,
– podatke potrebne za utvrđivanje i procjenu glavnih utjecaja koje bi projekt mogao imati na okoliš,
9 Among the projects referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 85/337 are, according to Annex I, paragraphs 7(a) and 22, the ‘[c]onstruction of lines for long-distance railway traffic and of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more’ and ‘[a]ny change to or extension of projects listed in this Annex where such a change or extension in itself meets the thresholds, if any, set out in this Annex.’
9 Među projektima iz članka 4. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337 nalaze se, u skladu s Prilogom I., stavkom 7. točkom (a) i stavkom 22., „[g] radnja željezničkih pruga za međugradski promet i zračnih luka s osnovnom uzletno sletnom stazom dužine 2 100 m ili više” i [s]vaka izmjena ili proširenje projekata navedenih u tom Prilogu ako ta promjena ili proširenje samo po sebi ispunjava eventualne zahtjeve u pogledu graničnih vrijednosti navedenih u tom Prilogu”. [neslužbeni prijevod]
10 The first indent of paragraph 13 of Annex II to Directive 85/337 includes, among the projects referred to in Article 4(2) of that directive, ‘[a]ny change or extension of projects listed in Annex I …, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment (change or extension not included in Annex I)’.
10 Prva alineja stavka 13. Priloga II. Direktivi 85/337 obuhvaća, među projektima iz članka 4. stavka 2. te direktive „[s]vaku izmjenu ili proširenje projekata navedenih u Prilogu I. […], koji su već odobreni, izvršeni ili se izvršavaju i mogli bi značajno utjecati na okoliš (izmjena ili proširenje koji nisu uvršteni u Prilog I.)”. [neslužbeni prijevod]
11 Annex IV to the directive, entitled ‘Information referred to in Article 5(1)’ states, in paragraphs 3 to 5:
11 Prilog IV. toj direktivi, pod naslovom „Informacije iz članka 5. stavka 1.” u stavcima od 3. do 5. navodi:
‘3. A description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the proposed project, including, in particular, population, fauna, flora, soil, water, air, climatic factors, material assets, including the architectural and archaeological heritage, landscape and the inter-relationship between the above factors.
„3. Opis aspekata okoliša na koje bi predloženi projekt mogao značajno utjecati, posebno uključujući populaciju, faunu, floru, tlo, vodu, zrak, klimatske faktore, materijalna dobra, uključujući arhitektonsko i arheološko nasljeđe, krajobraz i međusobne odnose navedenih faktora.
4. A description … of the likely significant effects of the proposed project on the environment resulting from:
4. Opis […] mogućih značajnih utjecaja predloženog projekta na okoliš, koji proizlaze iz:
– the existence of the project,
– činjenice postojanja projekta kao cjeline,
– the use of natural resources,
– uporabe prirodnih resursa,
– the emission of pollutants, the creation of nuisances and the elimination of waste,
– emisije onečišćujućih tvari, pojave štetnog djelovanja i uklanjanja otpada,
5. A description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and, where possible, offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.’
5. Opis mjera predviđenih za sprečavanje, smanjivanje, i ako je moguće, otklanjanje svih značajnih štetnih utjecaja na okoliš.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
"12 Directive 85/337 was transposed into Austrian law by the Law of 1993 on the environmental impact assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 1993; ‘UVP-G 1993’), which was in force from 1 July 1994 until the entry into force, on 11 August 2000, of the Law of 2000 on the environmental impact assessment (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000), which was designed to transpose Directive 97/11."
"12 Direktiva 85/337 prenesena je u austrijsko pravo Zakonom o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš iz 1993.(Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 1993; dalje u tekstu: UVP-G 1993) koji je bio na snazi od 1. srpnja 1994. do 11. kolovoza 2000., kada je stupio na snagu Zakon o procjeni utjecaja na okoliš iz 2000. (Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000), kojim je prenesena Direktiva 97/11."
13 Since 1997, Ms Leth, the applicant in the main proceedings, has been the owner of a property situated within the security zone of Vienna-Schwechat airport. She lives in the house built on that property.
13 Od 1997. J. Leth, tužiteljica u glavnom postupku, vlasnica je nekretnine koja se nalazi u sigurnosnoj zoni zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat. Ona živi u kući izgrađenoj na toj nekretnini.
14 Since the accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union, on 1 January 1995, the authorities of the defendants in the main proceedings have, without carrying out environmental impact assessments, consented to and completed several projects relating to the development and extension of Vienna-Schwechat airport. By decision of 21 August 2001, the Minister-President of Land Niederösterreich expressly stated that no environmental impact assessment procedure was necessary in relation to the continued development and certain extensions of that airport.
14 Od pristupanja Republike Austrije Europskoj uniji, 1. siječnja 1995., nadležna tijela tuženika u glavnom postupku odobrila su i izvela nekoliko projekata povezanih s uređenjem i proširenjem zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat bez provođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš. Odlukom od 21. kolovoza 2001. ministar predsjednik Land Niederösterreich (pokrajine Donje Austrije) izričito je izjavio da za nastavak uređenja i određenih proširenja zračne luke nije potreban postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
15 In 2009, Ms Leth brought an action before the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna) against the two defendants in the main proceedings, in which she sought payment by them of EUR 120 000 in respect of the decrease in the value of her property, in particular as a result of aircraft noise, and a declaration that the defendants will be liable for any future damage, including damage to her health, arising from the late and incomplete transposition of Directive 85/337, Directive 97/11, and Directive 2003/35, and from the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment before giving the various consents relating to the development of Vienna-Schwechat airport. The defendants in the main proceedings have contended that their authorities acted lawfully and without negligence, and that the claim brought is time-barred.
15 2009. J. Leth podnijela je Landesgerichtu für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regionalnom civilnom sudu u Beču) tužbu protiv dva tuženika u glavnom postupku, kojom je zahtijevala da joj isplate 120.000 eura radi smanjenja vrijednosti njezine nekretnine, posebno zbog buke zrakoplova, te da se utvrdi da će tuženici biti odgovorni za svaku buduću štetu, uključujući štetu po njezino zdravlje, koja nastane zbog nepravovremenog i nepotpunog prenošenja Direktive 85/337, Direktive 97/11 i Direktive 2003/35 i zbog neprovođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš prije davanja različitih suglasnosti vezanih uz uređenje zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat. Tuženici u glavnom postupku tvrdili su da su njihova nadležna tijela postupila zakonito i bez nemara, te da je podneseni zahtjev zastario.
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien dismissed the action in its entirety on the ground that the rights relied upon were time-barred. By way of a part-judgment on the appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna) confirmed the dismissal of the claim for payment of EUR 120 000, but set aside the dismissal of the claim in relation to the application for a declaration that the defendants in the main proceedings would be liable for future damage, referring the case back to the first-instance court in order for it to rule afresh on that latter application. In that respect, the Oberlandesgericht Wien found that the claim for payment of EUR 120 000 related only to purely pecuniary damage, which did not come within the objective of protection pursued by the provisions of European Union law, in particular those of the relevant directives, and by national law. As regards the application for a declaration of liability in respect of future damage, that court found that that application was not time-barred. Subsequently, an appeal on a point of law (‘Revision’) against the dismissal of the claim for that payment and an appeal against the referral back of the application for a declaration of liability were brought before the referring court.
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien je tužbu u cijelosti odbio zbog toga što su prava na koja se ona poziva zastarjela. Djelomičnom presudom na žalbu, Oberlandesgericht Wien (Viši regionalni sud, Beč) potvrdio je odbijanje zahtjeva u pogledu plaćanja 120.000 eura, ali je poništio odbijanje zahtjeva u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti tuženika u glavnom postupku za buduće štete i vratio predmet prvostupanjskom sudu na ponovno odlučivanje o tom drugom zahtjevu. S tim u vezi, Oberlandesgericht Wien utvrdio je da se zahtjev u pogledu plaćanja 120.000 eura odnosi isključivo na imovinsku štetu koja nije obuhvaćena ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići odredbama prava Unije, osobito odredbama relevantnih direktiva, kao ni nacionalnim pravom. Što se tiče zahtjeva u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti za buduće štete, navedeni je sud utvrdio da taj zahtjev nije zastario. Nakon toga je sudu koji je uputio zahtjev podnesena žalba povodom pravnog pitanja („revision”) protiv odbijanja zahtjeva u pogledu tog plaćanja kao i žalba protiv toga da se zahtjev u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti vrati na prethodno odlučivanje.
18 It is in that context that the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
18 U tom je kontekstu Oberster Gerichtshof (Vrhovni sud, Austrija) odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu uputiti sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
‘Is Article 3 of Directive 85/337 …, as amended by Directive 97/11 … and by Directive 2003/35 …, to be interpreted as meaning that:
„Treba li članak 3. Direktive 85/337 …, kako je izmijenjen Direktivom 97/11 … i Direktivom 2003/35 … tumačiti u smislu da:
"1. the term ‘material assets’ covers only their substance or also their value;"
"1. pojam „materijalna dobra” obuhvaća samo njihov sadržaj ili i njihovu vrijednost;"
2. the environmental impact assessment serves also to protect an individual against pecuniary damage as a result of a decrease in the value of his property?’
2. procjena utjecaja na okoliš služi i za zaštitu pojedinca od imovinske štete nastale zbog smanjenja vrijednosti njegove nekretnine?” [neslužbeni prijevod]
19 By letter of 21 December 2012, the applicant in the main proceedings requested the reopening of the oral procedure, claiming, first, that, in examining – in her Opinion delivered on 8 November 2012 – the issue of whether the environmental impact assessment under Article 3 of Directive 85/337 includes the assessment of the effects of the project under examination on the value of material assets, the Advocate General introduced a new question which had not been posed by the referring court and which had not been the subject of an exchange of views between the interested persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and, as a consequence, the first question as posed by the referring court was not answered. Secondly, she claims that those interested persons did not have the opportunity to exchange views on the consequences to be drawn from the fact that the public concerned was not informed of the projects at issue and could not, therefore, participate in the decision-making process.
19 Dopisom od 21. prosinca 2012., tužiteljica u glavnom postupku zatražila je ponovno otvaranje usmenog postupka tvrdeći, s jedne strane, da je nezavisna odvjetnica u svojem mišljenju od 8. studenoga 2012., razmatrajući pitanje o tome uključuje li procjena utjecaja na okoliš, u skladu s člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, procjenu utjecaja predmetnog projekta na vrijednost materijalnih dobara, otvorila novo pitanje koje sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije postavio i o kojima zainteresirane osobe iz članka 23. Statuta Suda Europske unije nisu raspravljale te da zato na prvo pitanje koje je postavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije odgovoreno. S druge strane, ona tvrdi da te zainteresirane osobe nisu imale priliku raspravljati o posljedicama činjenice da zainteresirana javnost nije bila obaviještena o predmetnom projektu i da stoga nije mogla sudjelovati u postupku odlučivanja.
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. Therefore, it is necessary to examine, in particular, the effects of a project on the use of material assets by human beings.
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. Dakle, treba ispitati posebno utjecaj projekta na čovjekovu uporabu materijalnih dobara.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
29 Stoga valja uzeti u obzir samo one utjecaje na materijalna dobra koji bi zbog svoje prirode isto tako mogli utjecati na okoliš. 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.
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). 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.
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.). 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.