natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
96 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the operator’s steps to obtain the permit to complete the landfill project at issue in the main proceedings started on 16 December 1998 with the lodging of an application for an environmental impact assessment in respect of that project. However, it follows from Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) that Directive 85/337 had to be implemented by the Slovak Republic with effect from the date of that Member State’s accession to the European Union, namely 1 May 2004. 
96 Iz spisa dostavljenog Sudu u predmetnom slučaju proizlazi da su prvi koraci operatora za dobivanje dozvole za izvršenje projekta odlagališta iz glavnog postupka započeli 16. prosinca 1998. podnošenjem zahtjeva za procjenu učinka projekta na okoliš. Međutim, iz članka 2. Akta o uvjetima pristupanja Češke Republike, Republike Estonije, Republike Cipra, Republike Latvije, Republike Litve, Republike Mađarske, Republike Malte, Republike Poljske, Republike Slovenije i Slovačke Republike te o prilagodbama Ugovorâ (SL 2003, L 236, str. 33.) proizlazi da je Slovačka Republika dužna primjenjivati spomenutu Direktivu 85/337 počevši od dana pristupanja te države članice Europskoj uniji, tj. 1. svibnja 2004.
97 Nevertheless, it must be noted that the grant by the Slovak administration of the permit to complete the landfill site at issue in the main proceedings required three consecutive procedures, each of which led to the adoption of a decision. 
97 Unatoč tomu, valja napomenuti da je za dodjelu dozvole za gradnju odlagališta iz glavnog postupka slovačka uprava morala provesti tri uzastopna postupka, od kojih su sva tri rezultirala odlukom.
98 The operator’s applications concerning the first two procedures were made on 16 December 1998 and on 7 August 2002, that is to say, before the expiry of the period set for the transposition of Directive 85/337. By contrast, the application for the integrated permit was submitted on 25 September 2007, which is after the expiry of that period. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the submission of the first two applications may be regarded as marking the formal initiation of the authorisation procedure within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 94 of this judgment. 
98 Zahtjevi operatora za prva dva postupka podneseni su 16. prosinca 1998. i 7. kolovoza 2002., što znači prije isteka roka za prenošenje Direktive 85/337. Suprotno tome, zahtjev za integriranu dozvolu podnesen je 25. rujna 2007., tj. nakon isteka tog roka. Stoga je potrebno utvrditi može li se podnošenje prvih dvaju zahtjeva smatrati službenim početkom postupka izdavanja odobrenja u smislu ustaljene sudske prakse spomenute u točki 94. ove presude.
99 In that regard, it is important first of all to state that the applications submitted during the first two stages of the procedure are not to be confused with mere informal contacts which are not capable of demonstrating the formal opening of the authorisation procedure (see, to that effect, Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany, paragraph 32). 
99 U tom je pogledu, prije svega, važno navesti da se zahtjevi podneseni tijekom prve dvije faze postupka ne smiju zamijeniti čisto neformalnim kontaktima, kojima se ne može dokazati formalno započinjanje postupka izdavanja odobrenja (u tom smislu vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Komisija/Njemačka, t. 32.).
100 Next, it must be pointed out that the environmental impact assessment completed in 1999 was carried out in order to enable completion of the landfill project which was the subject of the integrated permit. The subsequent steps taken in the procedure, and in particular, the issue of the construction permit, are based on that assessment. As the Advocate General has noted in point 115 of her Opinion, the fact that, under Slovak law, environmental impact is assessed separately from the actual authorisation procedure cannot extend the scope in time of Directive 85/337. 
100 Nadalje, valja istaknuti da je procjena učinka na okoliš iz 1999. provedena kako bi se omogućila izvedba projekta odlagališta koji je predmet integrirane dozvole. Naknadni koraci u tom postupku, a posebno izdavanje građevinske dozvole, temelje se na toj procjeni. Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica istaknula u točki 115. svog mišljenja, činjenica da se prema slovačkom pravu utjecaj na okoliš ocjenjuje odvojeno od samog postupka izdavanja odobrenja, ne može produžiti vremenski opseg Direktive 85/337.
101 Likewise, it is apparent from the considerations set out in paragraph 79 of this judgment that the urban planning decision on the location of the landfill site at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an indispensable stage for the operator to be authorised to carry out the landfill project at issue. That decision, moreover, imposes a number of conditions with which the operator must comply when carrying out his project. 
101 Slično tomu, iz razmatranja u točki 79. ove presude proizlazi da odluka o uvjetima provedbe prostornog plana za lokaciju odlagališta otpada iz glavnog postupka predstavlja neizbježan korak prema tome da operator dobije dozvolu za izvršenje projekta izgradnje odlagališta otpada. Osim toga, spomenuta odluka nameće niz uvjeta koje operator mora zadovoljiti kod izvođenja projekta.
102 However, when examining a comparable procedure, the Court of Justice has taken the view that the date which should be used as a reference to determine whether the application in time of a directive imposing an environmental impact assessment was the date on which the project was formally submitted because the various phases of examination of a project are so closely connected that they represent a complex operation (Case C-209/04 Commission v Austria [2006] ECR I-2755, paragraph 58). 
102 Međutim, prilikom ispitivanja jednog sličnog postupka Sud je smatrao da datum koji treba uzeti kao referentni za određivanje vremenske primjene neke direktive kojom se određuje provođenje procjene utjecaja na okoliš treba biti datum na koji je projekt formalno podnesen, budući da su različite faze ispitivanja projekta toliko usko povezane da predstavljaju vrlo složenu operaciju (presude od 23. ožujka 2006., Komisija/Austrija, C-209/04, Zb., str. I-2755., t. 58.).
103 Finally, it is apparent from settled case-law that an authorisation within the meaning of Directive 85/337 may be formed by the combination of several distinct decisions when the national procedure which allows the developer to be authorised to start works to complete his project includes several consecutive steps (see, to that effect, Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, paragraph 52, and Case C-508/03 Commission v United Kingdom [2006] ECR I-3969, paragraph 102). It follows that, in that situation, the date on which the application for a permit for a project was formally lodged must be fixed as the day on which the developer submitted an application seeking to initiate the first stage of the procedure. 
103 Konačno, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da odobrenje u smislu Direktive 85/337 može sadržavati kombinaciju nekoliko zasebnih odluka, ako nacionalni postupak kojim se investitora ovlašćuje da započne s izvođenjem radova na projektu uključuje nekoliko uzastopnih koraka (u tom smislu vidjeti presude od 7. siječnja 2004., Wells, C-201/02, Zb., str. I-723., t. 52., i od 4. svibnja 2006., Komisija/Ujedinjena Kraljevina, C-508/03, Zb., str. I-3969., t. 102.). Iz toga slijedi da se u tom slučaju datum na koji je formalno podnesen zahtjev za odobrenje projekta mora odrediti kao datum na koji je investitor podnio zahtjev za početak prve faze postupka.
104 It follows from the foregoing considerations that the application for a permit for the landfill project at issue in the main proceedings was formally lodged before the date of the expiry of the period set for transposition of Directive 85/337. Consequently, the obligations arising from that directive do not apply to that project and therefore it is not necessary to answer the third question. 
104 Iz gore navedenih razmatranja slijedi da je zahtjev za odobrenje projekta odlagališta iz glavnog postupka formalno podnesen prije isteka roka za prenošenje Direktive 85/337. Sukladno tomu, obveze koje proizlaze iz te direktive ne primjenjuju se na taj projekt te, stoga, na treće pitanje nije potrebno odgovoriti.
105 By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 1 and 15a of Directive 96/61, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 9 of the Aarhus Convention, must be interpreted as meaning that members of the public concerned must be able, in the context of an action under Article 15a of that directive, to ask the court or the competent independent and impartial body established by law to order interim measures of a nature temporarily to suspend the application of a permit within the meaning of Article 4 of that directive pending the final decision. 
105 U svojem četvrtom pitanju sud koji je podnio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članke 1. i 15.a Direktive 96/61, u vezi s člancima 6. i 9. Aarhuške konvencije, tumačiti u smislu da se članovima zainteresirane javnosti mora, u okviru pravnog lijeka iz članka 15.a te direktive, omogućiti da od suda ili zakonski utemeljenog, nadležnog neovisnog i nepristranog tijela zatraže da odrede privremene mjere kojima se privremeno suspendira primjena dozvole u smislu članka 4. te direktive dok se ne donese konačna odluka.
106 By virtue of their procedural autonomy, the Member States have discretion in implementing Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention and Article 15a of Directive 96/61, subject to compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. It is for them, in particular, to determine, in so far as the abovementioned provisions are complied with, which court of law or which independent and impartial body established by law is to have jurisdiction in respect of the review procedure referred to in those provisions and what procedural rules are applicable (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-128/09 to C-131/09, C-134/09 and C-135/09 Boxus and Others [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 52). 
106 Na temelju svoje postupovne autonomije i pod uvjetom da se poštuju načela ekvivalentnosti i djelotvornosti, države članice raspolažu marginom prosudbe kada je riječ o provođenju članka 9. Aarhuške konvencije i članka 15.a Direktive 96/61. Na njima je da odluče koji je sud ili koje zakonski utvrđeno neovisno i nepristrano tijelo nadležno za odlučivanje o pravnim lijekovima navedenim u tim odredbama i koje postupke treba primjenjivati radi usklađivanja s gore navedenim odredbama (vidjeti analogijom presudu od 18. listopada 2011., Boxus i dr., od C-128/09 do C-131/09, C-134/09 i C-135/09, Zb., str. I-9711., t. 52.).
107 Moreover, it is apparent from settled-case law that a national court seised of a dispute governed by European Union law must be in a position to grant interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under European Union law (Case C-213/89 Factortame and Others [1990] ECR I-2433, paragraph 21, and Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 67). 
107 Osim toga, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da nacionalni sud pred kojim se vodi postupak uređen pravom Unije treba biti u mogućnosti odobriti privremene mjere kako bi se osigurala puna djelotvornost presude koju treba donijeti u vezi s postojanjem prava na koja se poziva na temelju prava Unije (presude od 19. lipnja 1990., Factortame i dr., C-213/89, Zb., str. I-2433., t. 21., i od 13. ožujka 2007., Unibet, C-432/05, Zb., str. I-2271., t. 67.).
108 It must be added that the right to bring an action provided for by Article 15a of Directive 96/61 must be interpreted in the light of the purpose of that directive. The Court has already held that that purpose, as laid down in Article 1 of the directive, is to achieve integrated prevention and control of pollution by putting in place measures designed to prevent or reduce emissions of the activities listed in Annex I into the air, water and land in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment (Case C-473/07 Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières and OABA [2009] ECR I-319, paragraph 25, and Case C-585/10 Møller [2011] ECR I-0000, paragraph 29). 
108 Valja dodati da pravo podnošenja tužbe, predviđeno u članku 15.a Direktive 96/61, valja tumačiti imajući na umu svrhu te direktive. Sud je već utvrdio da je svrha te direktive, kako je utvrđeno u članku 1. te direktive, postizanje integriranog sprečavanja i kontrole onečišćenja na temelju mjera čiji je cilj sprečavanje ili smanjenje emisija u zrak, vodu i tlo zbog djelatnosti navedenih u Dodatku I., kako bi se postigla visoka razina zaštite okoliša (presude od 22. siječnja 2009., Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières i OABA, C-473/07, Zb., str. I-319., t. 25.,i od 15. prosinca 2011., Møller, C-585/10, Zb., str. I-13407., t. 29.).
109 However, exercise of the right to bring an action provided for by Article 15a of Directive 96/61 would not make possible effective prevention of that pollution if it were impossible to prevent an installation which may have benefited from a permit awarded in infringement of that directive from continuing to function pending a definitive decision on the lawfulness of that permit. It follows that the guarantee of effectiveness of the right to bring an action provided for in that Article 15a requires that the members of the public concerned should have the right to ask the court or competent independent and impartial body to order interim measures such as to prevent that pollution, including, where necessary, by the temporary suspension of the disputed permit. 
109 Međutim, pravo na podnošenje tužbe predviđeno člankom 15.a Direktive 96/61 ne bi omogućilo učinkovito sprečavanje onečišćenja ako ne bi bilo moguće spriječiti daljnji rad postrojenja kojem je dozvola dodijeljena suprotno toj direktivi, dok se ne donese konačna odluka o zakonitosti te dozvole. Iz toga slijedi da jamstvo djelotvornosti prava na podnošenje tužbe predviđenog u članku 15.a zahtijeva da članovi zainteresirane javnosti mogu od suda ili nadležnog neovisnog i nepristranog tijela zatražiti da odrede privremene mjere radi sprečavanja onečišćenja uključujući, prema potrebi, privremenu suspenziju sporne dozvole.
110 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 15a of Directive 96/61 must be interpreted as meaning that members of the public concerned must be able, in the context of the action provided for by that provision, to ask the court or competent independent and impartial body established by law to order interim measures such as temporarily to suspend the application of a permit, within the meaning of Article 4 of that directive, pending the final decision. 
110 S obzirom na sve prethodno navedeno, na četvrto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 15.a Direktive 96/61 treba tumačiti u smislu da članovi zainteresirane javnosti, u okviru pravnog lijeka predviđenog tom odredbom, moraju biti u mogućnosti da od suda ili nekog drugog zakonski utemeljenog neovisnog i nepristranog tijela zatraže da odredi privremene mjere kojima se privremeno suspendira primjena dozvole u smislu članka 4. te direktive dok se ne donese konačna odluka
111 By its fifth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether a decision of a national court, taken in the context of national proceedings implementing the obligations resulting from Article 15a of Directive 96/61 and from Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention, which annuls a permit granted in infringement of the provisions of that directive, is capable of constituting an unjustified interference with the developer’s right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
111 U svojem petom pitanju sud koji je podnio zahtjev u biti pita može li se odluka nacionalnog suda, donesena u okviru nacionalnog postupka za provedbu obveza koje proizlaze iz članka 15.a Direktive 96/61 i članka 9. stavaka 2. i 4. Aarhuške konvencije, kojom se ukida dozvola dodijeljena povredom odredbi te direktive, smatrati neopravdanim zadiranjem u pravo vlasništva operatora zajamčeno člankom 17. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima.
112 As the Advocate General has noted in points 182 to 184 of her Opinion, the conditions set by Directive 96/61 restrict use of the right to property on land affected by an installation coming within the scope of that directive. 
112 Kao što je nezavisna odvjetnica istaknula u točkama od 182. do 184. svojeg mišljenja, uvjeti određeni Direktivom 96/61 ograničavaju korištenje prava vlasništva na zemljištu na kojem se nalazi postrojenje obuhvaćeno područjem primjene te direktive.
113 However, the right to property 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 and do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the right guaranteed (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, and Joined Cases C-379/08 and C-380/08 ERG and Others [2010] ECR I-2007, paragraph 80). 
113 Međutim, pravo vlasništva nije apsolutno pravo i valja ga promatrati u odnosu na njegovu socijalnu funkciju. Stoga se njegovo ostvarivanje može ograničiti pod uvjetom da ta ograničenja odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa i u odnosu na cilj koji se želi postići ne predstavljaju neproporcionalno i neprihvatljivo miješanje kojim se krši sama bit zajamčenih prava (presude 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.,i od 9. ožujka 2010., ERG i dr., C-379/08 i C-380/08, Zb., str. I-2007., t. 80.).
"114 As regards the objectives of general interest referred to above, established case-law shows that protection of the environment is one of those objectives and is therefore capable of justifying a restriction on the use of the right to property (see Case 240/83 ADBHU [1985] ECR 531, paragraph 13; Case 302/86 Commission v Denmark [1988] ECR 4607, paragraph 8; Case C-213/96 Outokumpu [1998] ECR I-1777, paragraph 32; and ERG and Others, paragraph 81)." 
"114 U pogledu prethodno navedenih ciljeva od općeg interesa, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da ja zaštita okoliša jedan od tih ciljeva te je, stoga, ograničenje korištenja prava vlasništva moguće opravdati (vidjeti presude od 7. veljače 1985., ADBHU, 240/83, Zb., str. 531., t. 13., od 20. rujna 1988., Komisija/Danska, 302/86, Zb., str. 4607., t. 8.; od 2. travnja 1998., Outokumpu, C-213/96, Zb., str. I-1777., t. 32., i gore navedenu presudu od 9. ožujka 2010., ERG i dr., C-379/08 i C-380/08, t. 81.)."
115 As regards the proportionality of the infringement of the right of property at issue, where such an infringement may be established, it is sufficient to state that Directive 96/61 operates a balance between the requirements of that right and the requirements linked to protection of the environment. 
115 Što se tiče proporcionalnosti zadiranja u spomenuto pravo vlasništva, ukoliko je moguće utvrditi takvo zadiranje, dostatno je navesti da Direktiva 96/61 uspostavlja ravnotežu između zahtjevâ toga prava i zahtjevâ u vezi sa zaštitom okoliša.
116 Consequently, the answer to the fifth question is that a decision of a national court, taken in the context of national proceedings implementing the obligations resulting from Article 15a of Directive 96/61 and from Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention, which annuls a permit granted in infringement of the provisions of that directive is not capable, in itself, of constituting an unjustified interference with the developer’s right to property enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 
116 Stoga na peto pitanje valja odgovoriti da odluka nacionalnog suda, donesena u okviru nacionalnog postupka za provedbu obveza koje proizlaze iz članka 15.a Direktive 96/61 i članka 9. stavaka 2. i 4. Aarhuške konvencije, kojom se ukida dozvola dodijeljena povredom odredbi te direktive, ne može sama po sebi predstavljati neopravdano zadiranje u pravo vlasništva operatora zajamčeno člankom 17. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima.
117 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. 
117 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. Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, such as the referring court, is obliged to make, of its own motion, a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union even though it is ruling on a referral back to it after its first decision was set aside by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned and even though a national rule obliges it to resolve the dispute by following the legal opinion of that latter court. 
1. Članak 267. UFEU-a treba tumačiti u smislu da je nacionalni sud, kao što je sud koji je uputio zahtjev, obvezan po službenoj dužnosti Sudu Europske unije podnijeti zahtjev za prethodnu odluku iako se odluka donosi nakon što je predmet vraćen na ponovno suđenje, nakon što je ustavni sud dotične države članice ukinuo njegovu prvu odluku i iako prema nacionalnom pravilu spor treba riješiti poštujući pravno stajalište ustavnog suda.
2. Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it: 
2. Direktivu Vijeća 96/61/EZ od 24. rujna 1996. o integriranom sprečavanju i kontroli onečišćenja, kako je izmijenjena Uredbom (EZ) br. 166/2006 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 18. siječnja 2006. treba tumačiti u smislu da:
– requires that the public concerned have access to an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from the beginning of the authorisation procedure for the installation concerned, 
– se njome zahtijeva da odluka o uvjetima provedbe prostornog plana, kao što je ona o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, bude stavljena na raspolaganje javnosti od samog početka postupka izdavanja dozvole za to postrojenje,
– does not preclude the possibility of rectifying, during the administrative procedure at second instance, an unjustified refusal to make available to the public concerned an urban planning decision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, during the administrative procedure at first instance, provided that all options and solutions remain possible and that regularisation at that stage of the procedure still allows that public effectively to influence the outcome of the decision-making process, this being a matter for the national court to determine. 
– ne isključuje mogućnost da se u drugostupanjskom upravnom postupku ispravi neopravdano odbijanje da se tijekom prvostupanjskog upravnog postupka zainteresiranoj javnosti stavi na raspolaganje odluka o uvjetima provedbe prostornog plana, kao što je ona o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, pod uvjetom da su i dalje otvorene sve mogućnosti i rješenja i da se legalizacijom u toj fazi postupka može osigurati da javnost djelotvorno utječe na ishod postupka odlučivanja, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.