natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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;"
"– 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; i"
– 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. 
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.
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. Such a practice would impose an excessive restriction on their right to property and would be contrary to the principle of proportionality. 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. Moreover, the land of the applicants in the main proceedings has already been decontaminated or indeed has never been polluted. Finally, such restrictions were imposed on them even though they had of their own volition carried out reinstatement work on their land and were not responsible for the pollution in question. 
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. Takvom bi se praksom nametnulo pretjerano ograničenje njihovog prava vlasništva, a ta bi praksa bila protivna načelu proporcionalnosti. Vlastiti interes operatera u provođenju mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu leži upravo u očekivanju da na svojem zemljištu nastavi produktivnu djelatnost. Osim toga, zemljište tužitelja u glavnom postupku već je dekontaminirano ili stvarno nikada nije bilo onečišćeno. Konačno, takva su im ograničenja nametnuta iako su spontano započeli radove ponovne uspostave stanja okoliša na svojem zemljištu i nisu odgovorni za predmetno onečišćenje.
70 The Italian Government considers that the competent authority’s practice of making use of the land of the applicants in the main proceedings subject to the condition that they implement the environmental remedial measures is entirely lawful and compatible with EU legislation. Such a practice is also consonant with the precautionary principle because, if the operators in question were able to use the decontaminated areas without restriction, they could thus create other industrial infrastructures, which would constitute an insurmountable barrier to the implementation of the remedial measures chosen by the competent authority. 
70 Talijanska vlada smatra da je praksa nadležnog tijela da pravo uporabe zemljišta tužiteljâ u glavnom postupku uvjetuje izvršenjem mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu potpuno zakonita i u skladu s propisom Unije. Takva je praksa u skladu i s načelom opreznosti jer, kada bi dotični operateri mogli upotrebljavati dekontaminirana područja bez ograničenja, mogli bi izgraditi i drugu industrijsku infrastrukturu, što bi bila nepremostiva prepreka provedbi mjera otklanjanja koje je odabralo nadležno tijelo.
71 According to the Commission, Directive 2004/35 does not preclude the competent authority from imposing environmental decontamination measures on an operator and requiring, as a condition for authorisation for the operator to use land owned by him which is not directly affected by the rehabilitation, that he carries out those measures. It submits that such measures could even be outside the scope of EU law. 
71 Prema mišljenju Komisije, Direktivi 2004/35 nije protivno to da nadležno tijelo operateru nametne mjere za dekontaminaciju okoliša i da odobrenje za uporabu zemljišta u vlasništvu operatera, na koja se mjere sanacije izravno ne odnose uvjetuje provedbom tih mjera. Ona tvrdi da bi takve mjere čak mogle biti isključene iz područja primjene prava Unije.
75 If, on the other hand, the directive were to apply, it must be noted that, under the system set up by Directive 2004/35, operators are under a duty both to prevent and remedy environmental damage. Accordingly, in particular in accordance with the precautionary principle and as is apparent from recital 2 in the preamble to the directive, those operators must, first, take the preventive measures necessary to ensure that environmental damage does not occur. 
75 Ako je, s druge strane, ta Direktiva primjenjiva, treba napomenuti da su u okviru sustava uspostavljenog Direktivom 2004/35 operateri dužni i spriječiti i otkloniti štetu u okolišu. U skladu s tim, a osobito u skladu s načelom opreznosti i kako proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 2. te direktive, ti operateri moraju poduzeti prvo preventivne mjere kako bi osigurali da ne dođe do štete u okolišu.
76 Second, where environmental damage has occurred, as in the cases in the main proceedings, Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/35 provides that operators must take, inter alia, the necessary remedial measures, in accordance with Article 7 of the directive. Where appropriate, the competent authority has special powers to oblige them to do so or to take such measures itself. 
76 Drugo, ako se šteta u okolišu dogodi, kao što je slučaj u glavnom postupku, člankom 6. stavkom 1. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno je da operateri poduzimaju, osobito, potrebne mjere otklanjanja štete u skladu s člankom 7. te direktive. Nadležno tijelo ima posebne ovlasti da ih, prema potrebi, na to prisili ili da samo poduzme takve mjere.
77 In the cases before the referring court, the applicants object to the measures which were imposed by the Italian authorities because those measures do not concern the land they occupy, which, moreover, has already been decontaminated. However, according to those authorities, the pollution affecting the Augusta roadstead derives from that land, since it has spread into the sea. 
77 U predmetima pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev tužitelji se protive mjerama koje su im nametnula talijanska tijela jer se te mjere ne tiču zemljišta u njihovom vlasništvu, koja su uz to već i dekontaminirana. Međutim, prema mišljenju tih istih tijela, onečišćenje koje pogađa sidrište Augusta potječe s tog zemljišta s obzirom na to da se proširilo u more.
79 Directive 2004/35 does not specify the precise conditions under which the competent authority may require the operators concerned to take the remedial measures identified by the authority. In such circumstances, it is for each Member State to determine those conditions, which must, first, seek to attain the objective of the directive, as set out in Article 1 thereof, namely to prevent and remedy environmental damage and, second, comply with EU law, in particular its general principles. 
79 U Direktivi 2004/35 nisu precizno navedeni uvjeti pod kojima nadležno tijelo može zahtijevati od operatera da poduzmu mjere otklanjanja štete koje odredi to tijelo. U takvim okolnostima, na svakoj je državi članici da utvrdi takve uvjete koji, kao prvo, moraju biti usmjereni na postizanje cilja te direktive i, drugo, moraju biti u skladu s pravom Unije, a osobito općim načelima tog prava.
"80 As regards infringement of their right to property, invoked by the applicants in the main proceedings, the Court has consistently held that, while the right to property forms part of the general principles of EU law, it is not an absolute right and must be viewed in relation to its social function. Consequently, its exercise may be restricted, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the European Union and do not constitute disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (Case 44/79 Hauer [1979] ECR 3727, paragraph 23; Case 265/87 Schräder HS Kraftfutter [1989] ECR 2237, paragraph 15; Case C-293/97 Standley and Others [1999] ECR I-2603, paragraph 54; and Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I-6351, paragraph 355)." 
"80 U pogledu povrede prava vlasništva na koju se pozivaju tužitelji u glavnom postupku, Sud je dosljedan u stajalištu da, iako je pravo vlasništva dio općih načela prava Unije, to pravo nije apsolutno i valja ga promatrati u odnosu na njegovu socijalnu funkciju. Stoga se njegovo ostvarivanje može ograničiti pod uvjetom da ta ograničenja odgovaraju ciljevima Unije koji su od općeg interesa i ne predstavljaju nerazmjernu i neprihvatljivu zapreku koja dovodi u pitanje samu bit tako zajamčenih prava (presude od 13. prosinca 1979., Hauer, C-44/79, Zb., str. 3727., t. 23.; od 11. srpnja 1989., Schräder HS Kraftfutter, C-265/87, Zb., str. 2237., t. 15.; od 29. travnja 1999., Standley i dr., C-293/97, Zb., str. I-2603., t. 54., i od 3. rujna 2008., Kadi i Al Barakaat International Foundation/Vijeće i Komisija, C-402/05 P i C-415/05 P, Zb., str. I-6351., t. 355.)."
"81 As regards the objectives of general interest referred to above, established case-law also shows that protection of the environment is one of those objectives (see Case 240/83 ADBHU [1985] ECR 531, paragraph 13; Case C-302/86 Commission v Denmark [1988] ECR 4607, paragraph 8; and Case C-213/96 Outokumpu [1998] ECR I-1777, paragraph 32)." 
"81 U pogledu prethodno navedenih ciljeva od općeg interesa, iz ustaljene sudske prakse isto tako proizlazi da je zaštita okoliša jedan od tih ciljeva (vidjeti presude od 7. veljače 1985., ADBHU, C-240/83, Zb., str. 531., t. 13.; od 20. rujna 1988., Komisija/Danska, C-302/86, Zb., str. 4607., t. 8., i od 2. travnja 1998., Outokumpu, C-213/96, Zb., str. I-1777., t. 32.)."
"86 However, it is necessary to consider whether such measures, which are permitted under national legislation, exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives legitimately pursued by the legislation in question; when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (see, to that effect, Case C-534/06 Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine [2008] ECR I-4129, paragraph 25, and Case C-170/08 Nijemeisland [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 41)." 
86 Međutim, treba razmotriti prekoračuju li te mjere, koje su dozvoljene u skladu s nacionalnim propisom, granice onoga što je prikladno i nužno za postizanje ciljeva kojima zakonodavstvo legitimno teži, s tim da, ako postoji izbor između više prikladnih mjera, treba izabrati manje otegotnu, a uzrokovane nepovoljnosti ne smiju biti neproporcionalne u odnosu na ciljeve koje se želi postići (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 5. lipnja 2008., Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine, C-534/06, Zb., str. I-4129., t. 25. i od 11. lipnja 2009., Nijemeisland, C-170/08, Zb., str. I-5127., t. 41.).
89 However, it should be pointed out that that is simply one option available to the competent authority. It might prefer to require the operators in question to implement the necessary recovery measures rather than implement them itself. 
89 Međutim, treba istaknuti da je to samo jedna od mogućnosti dostupnih nadležnom tijelu. Ono može odlučiti da od dotičnih operatera zatraži da provedu potrebne mjere otklanjanja štete umjesto da ih provede sâmo.
92 The answer to the third question is therefore that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Directive 2004/35 does not preclude 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. However, such a measure must be justified by the objective of preventing a deterioration of the environmental situation in the area in which those measures are implemented or, pursuant to the precautionary principle, by the objective of preventing the occurrence or resurgence of further environmental damage on the land belonging to the operators which is adjacent to the whole shoreline at which those remedial measures are directed. 
92 Stoga na treće pitanje valja odgovoriti da, u okolnostima kakve su u glavnom postupku, Direktivi 2004/35 nije 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. Međutim, takva mjera mora biti opravdana ciljem sprečavanja pogoršanja stanja okoliša na području na kojem se te mjere provode ili, u skladu s načelom opreznosti, ciljem sprečavanja nastanka ili ponovne pojave daljnje štete u okolišu na susjednom zemljištu u vlasništvu operaterâ uzduž cijele obale na koju su usmjerene te mjere otklanjanja.
93 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 
93 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.
1. Articles 7 and 11(4) of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, 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: 
1. Članak 7. i članak 11. stavak 4. Direktive 2004/35 o odgovornosti za okoliš u pogledu sprečavanja i otklanjanja štete u okolišu, u vezi s Prilogom II. toj Direktivi, treba tumačiti tako da nadležnom tijelu dopuštaju da bitno izmijeni 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. 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 te mjere provoditi da daju svoje primjedbe, i te primjedbe uzima u obzir; i"