natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
30 The Italian Government and the Commission doubt whether Directive 2004/35 is applicable ratione temporis to the facts of the disputes in the main proceedings, since the environmental damage occurred before 30 April 2007 and/or is the result, in any event, of earlier activities which ceased before that date. However, the Commission suggests that the directive could be applicable in so far as concerns damage occurring after 30 April 2007 as a result of the current activities of the operators in question. It cannot be applicable, however, to any pollution occurring before that date caused by operators other than operators currently active in the Augusta roadstead but which is being attributed to the latter operators.
30 Talijanska vlada i Komisija sumnjaju da se Direktiva 2004/35 može primijeniti ratione temporis na činjenice iz sporova u glavnom postupku, s obzirom na to da je šteta u okolišu nastala prije 30. travnja 2007. i/ili je u svakom slučaju rezultat ranijih djelatnosti koje su završene prije tog datuma. Međutim, Komisija pretpostavlja mogućnost da se direktiva primjenjuje u pogledu štete koja je nastala nakon 30. travnja 2007. kao rezultat tekućih djelatnosti dotičnih operatera. Međutim, ne može biti primjenjiva na onečišćenje nastalo prije tog datuma koje su prouzročili neki drugi operateri, a ne operateri koji trenutačno djeluju u sidrištu Augusta, a koje se pripisuje potonjima.
31 As is apparent from recital 30 in the preamble to Directive 2004/35, the legislature of the European Union took the view that ‘damage caused before the expiry of the deadline for implementation of [the] Directive should not be covered by’ the provisions of the environmental liability mechanism established by the directive, that is to say, damage caused before 30 April 2007.
31 S tim u vezi, a i kako proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 30. Direktive 2004/35, zakonodavac Unije procijenio je da se odredbe o mehanizmu odgovornosti za okoliš utvrđenom tom direktivom „ne bi […] trebale odnositi na štetu prouzročenu prije isteka krajnjeg roka za provedbu Direktive”, to jest, štetu prouzročenu prije 30. travnja 2007.
32 The EU legislature expressly set out, in Article 17 of Directive 2004/35, the types of situation in which the directive is not applicable. Since the situations which fall outside the scope ratione temporis of the directive were thus determined in negative terms, it must be concluded that any other temporal situation is, in principle, covered by the environmental liability mechanism established by that directive.
32 Spomenuti zakonodavac izričito je utvrdio, u članku 17. Direktive 2004/35, vrste situacija u kojima se Direktiva ne primjenjuje. S obzirom da su situacije koje nisu obuhvaćene područjem primjene ratione temporis tako određene u negativnom smislu, valja zaključiti da se mehanizam odgovornosti za okoliš utvrđen tom direktivom s vremenskog stajališta u načelu odnosi na sve ostale situacije.
35 Article 267 TFEU is based on a clear division of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, so that the Court may rule on the interpretation or validity of a provision of EU law only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it. It follows that, within the framework of the procedure under Article 267 TFEU, it is not for the Court of Justice but for the national court to apply to national measures or situations the rules of EU law as interpreted by the Court of Justice (see Case C-279/06 CEPSA [2008] ECR I-6681, paragraph 28).
35 Prema članku 267. UFEU-a, koji se temelji na jasnoj podjeli funkcija između nacionalnih sudova i Suda, Sud je jedini ovlašten očitovati se o tumačenju ili o valjanosti prava Unije polazeći od činjenica koje mu predstavi nacionalni sud. Iz toga slijedi da, u okviru postupka iz članka 267. UFEU-a, nije na Sudu, već je na nacionalnom sudu da na nacionalne mjere ili situacije primijeni pravila prava Unije prema tumačenju Suda (vidjeti presudu od 11. rujna 2008., CEPSA, C-279/06, Zb., str. I-6681., t. 28.).
38 Article 174 EC states that European Community policy on the environment is to aim at a high level of protection and is based, inter alia, on the principle that the polluter should pay. That provision is therefore confined to defining the general environmental objectives of the Community, since Article 175 EC confers on the Council of the European Union responsibility for deciding what action is to be taken, where appropriate following the codecision procedure with the European Parliament (see, to that effect, Case C-379/92 Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453, paragraphs 57 and 58).
38 U članku 174. UEZ-a navodi se da je politika Europske zajednice u području okoliša usmjerena prema postizanju visokog stupnja zaštite, a temelji se osobito na načelu ,onečišćivač plaćaʼ. Ta je odredba stoga ograničena na utvrđivanje općih ciljeva Zajednice u području okoliša, s obzirom na to da se člankom 175. UEZ-a odgovornost za odlučivanje o djelovanjima koja će se poduzeti dodjeljuje Vijeću Europske unije, prema potrebi u postupku suodlučivanja s Europskim parlamentom (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 14. srpnja 1994., Peralta, C-379/92, Zb., str. I-3453., t. 57. i 58.).
39 Since Article 174 EC, which establishes the ‘polluter pays’ principle, is directed at action at Community level, that provision cannot be relied on as such by individuals in order to exclude the application of national legislation – such as that at issue in the main proceedings – in an area covered by environmental policy for which there is no Community legislation adopted on the basis of Article 175 EC that specifically covers the situation in question.
39 S obzirom na to da se članak 174. UEZ-a, kojim se uspostavlja načelo „onečišćivač plaća”, odnosi na djelovanje Zajednice, pojedinci se na tu odredbu kao takvu ne mogu pozvati radi isključenja primjene nacionalnog propisa – poput onog u glavnom postupku – u području politike okoliša u slučaju kada nije primjenjiv nijedan propis Zajednice donesen na temelju članka 175. UEZ-a, koji se konkretno odnosi na dotično djelovanje.
– Observations submitted to the Court
– Očitovanja podnesena Sudu
41 The applicants in the main proceedings submit, in essence, that under the system set up by Directive 2004/35, environmental remedial measures must be determined upon a proposal from the relevant operators or, at the very least, after the operators have been consulted. It follows that the competent authority cannot, unilaterally and without consulting the operators, change measures for remedying environmental damage which have already been accepted by that authority – all the more so where the original remedial measures have already begun – and were sufficient to attain the objective of remedying the environmental damage and eliminating any significant risk of adverse effects on human health.
41 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku u bitni ističu da se u okviru sustava uspostavljenog Direktivom 2004/35 mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu moraju odrediti na prijedlog dotičnih operatera ili, barem, nakon savjetovanja s tim operaterima. Iz toga slijedi da nadležno tijelo ne može izmijeniti, jednostrano i bez savjetovanja s operaterima, mjere otklanjanja šteta u okolišu koje je to tijelo već prihvatilo, tim više što su izvorne mjere otklanjanja već započete i bile bi dovoljne za postizanje cilja otklanjanja štete u okolišu i uklanjanja svih značajnih rizika negativnih učinaka za zdravlje ljudi.
42 Moreover, in determining environmental remedial measures, the competent authority must carry out a cost-benefit analysis of the measures contemplated as well as a technical feasibility analysis, in so far as the only valid options are ‘reasonable remedial options’, that is to say, options which are not disproportionate and are based on the ‘best available techniques’. Lastly, the authority must also take account of the potential damage which might result from the remedial measures themselves for the environment and human health.
42 Osim toga, pri određivanju mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu, nadležno tijelo mora provesti analizu troškova i koristi planiranih mjera te analizu tehničke izvedivosti, u smislu da su jedine valjane mogućnosti „primjerene mogućnosti otklanjanja”, to jest, mogućnosti koje nisu neproporcionalne i temelje se na „najboljim raspoloživim tehnikama”. Konačno, tijelo mora uzeti u obzir i potencijalnu štetu za okoliš i zdravlje ljudi zbog samih mjera otklanjanja.
43 The Italian Government takes the view that its legislation is compatible with Article 7 of Directive 2004/35, since the competent authority can impose not only remedial measures which comply with those set out in Annex II to the directive but also more onerous measures, which may be different from those adopted on a proposal from the operators concerned after prior consultation with them. In the actions in the main proceedings, the fact that there was no consultation in connection with the measures subsequently adopted by the competent authority is not in any way contrary to the requirements laid down in the directive.
43 Talijanska vlada smatra da je njezin propis usklađen s člankom 7. Direktive 2004/35, s obzirom na to da nadležno tijelo može nametnuti ne samo mjere otklanjanja koje su u skladu s mjerama utvrđenima u Prilogu II. direktivi, već i restriktivnije mjere koje se mogu razlikovati od onih usvojenih na prijedlog dotičnih operatera nakon savjetovanja s njima. U sporovima u glavnom postupku, činjenica da nije bilo savjetovanja o mjerama koje je naknadno donijelo nadležno tijelo ni na koji se način nije u suprotnosti sa zahtjevima Direktive.
44 The Commission considers that, even if it were accepted that Directive 2004/35 were applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings, the directive does not preclude unilateral action on the part of the competent authority. Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of the directive confer a broad discretion on that authority for the purpose of determining appropriate environmental remedial measures, since it is just provided that such measures are to be determined ‘with the cooperation of the relevant operator, as required’. Annex II to the directive does not provide that the remedial measures should take any specific, mandatory form or lay down any specific procedural rules in that connection. The annex simply sets out the criteria to be followed and the objectives to be attained in choosing the most appropriate measures.
44 Komisija smatra da, čak i ako se prihvati da je Direktiva 2004/35 primjenjiva na sporove u glavnom postupku, jednostrano djelovanje nadležnog tijela nije protivno direktivi. Člankom 6. stavkom 2. i člankom 7. stavkom 2. direktive tom je tijelu dodijeljeno široko diskrecijsko pravo u određivanju primjerenih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu, s obzirom na to da se predviđa da se takve mjere određuju samo „prema potrebi u suradnji s [dotičnim] operaterom”. U Prilogu II. toj direktivi ne predviđaju se posebni oblici ni obveze otklanjanja, kao ni posebna proceduralna pravila u vezi s tim. Taj Prilog ograničen je samo na utvrđivanje kriterija i ciljeva koje treba postići odabirom najprimjerenijih mjera.
45 Moreover, Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/35 permits Member States to maintain or adopt more stringent national provisions in relation to environmental liability, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 176 EC. Although Article 7(4) of the directive provides that the competent authority must invite ‘the persons … on whose land remedial measures would be carried out to submit their observations and [must] take them into account’, the Commission considers that the authority is not bound by such observations, provided that it is possible as a result of the procedure adopted in accordance with Annex II to the directive to attain the environmental objectives laid down in the directive.
45 Osim toga, člankom 16. stavkom 1. Direktive 2004/35 državama članicama dozvoljeno je da zadrže ili donesu strože nacionalne propise u vezi s odgovornošću za okoliš, u skladu sa zahtjevima utvrđenima u članku 176. UEZ-a. Iako je člankom 7. stavkom 4. direktive predviđeno da nadležno tijelo mora pozvati „osobe […] na čijem će se zemljištu provoditi mjere otklanjanja, da daju primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir”, Komisija smatra da takve primjedbe ne obvezuju to tijelo pod uvjetom da se kao rezultat postupka usvojenog u skladu s Prilogom II. direktivi mogu postići ciljevi u pogledu okoliša utvrđeni u Direktivi.
– The Court’s reply
– Odgovor Suda
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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.)"
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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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. However, in order to adopt such a decision, that authority:
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. 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;"