natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
40 If the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia reaches the conclusion that, first, Directive 2004/35 is applicable ratione temporis in the main proceedings and, second, the conditions for the application ratione materiae of the directive are satisfied, in particular those set out at paragraphs 53 to 59 of the judgment of 9 March 2010 in Case C-378/08 ERG and Others [2010] ECR I-0000, the questions referred should be addressed as follows. 
40 Ako sud koji je uputio zahtjev zaključi da je, kao prvo, Direktiva 2004/35 primjenjiva ratione temporis u glavnom postupku i, kao drugo, da su zadovoljeni uvjeti za primjenu Direktive ratione materiae, osobito oni utvrđeni stavcima od 53. do 59. presude od 9. ožujka 2010., ERG i drugi (C-378/08, Zb., str. I-1919.), na prethodna pitanja valja odgovoriti kako slijedi.
The conditions under which recovery measures are to be adopted under Directive 2004/35 
Uvjeti pod kojima treba usvojiti mjere otklanjanja u smislu Direktive 2004/35
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. 
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.
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. 
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'. 
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".
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. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
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'. 
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".
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. 
U Prilogu II. toj direktivi ne predviđaju se posebni oblici ni obveze otklanjanja, kao ni posebna proceduralna pravila u vezi s tim.
The annex simply sets out the criteria to be followed and the objectives to be attained in choosing the most appropriate measures. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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.
46 Under the system set up by Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 2004/35, as a rule, it is for the operator who caused the damage to put forward proposals for the remedial measures which it considers appropriate to the situation. 
46 U okviru sustava iz članaka 6. i 7. Direktive 2004/35, u pravilu je na operateru koji je prouzročio štetu u okolišu da predloži mjere otklanjanja koje smatra primjerenima situaciji.
In view of the knowledge which the operator is deemed to have as regards the nature of the damage to the environment caused by his activities, such a system may enable appropriate environmental remedial measures to be identified and implemented swiftly. 
S obzirom na znanje za koje se smatra da ga operater posjeduje u pogledu karaktera štete u okolišu uzrokovane njegovim djelatnostima, takvim se sustavom može omogućiti brzo utvrđivanje i poduzimanje primjerenih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu.
47 Accordingly, under Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/35, where environmental damage has occurred, the operator must, without delay, inform the competent authority and take, inter alia, the necessary remedial measures, in accordance with Article 7 of the directive. 
47 U skladu s time, prema članku 6. stavku 1. Direktive 2004/35, ako je došlo do štete u okolišu, operater bez odgode obavješćuje nadležno tijelo i poduzima, inter alia, potrebne mjere otklanjanja u skladu s člankom 7. te Direktive.
48 However, Articles 6(2) of Directive 2004/35 provides that the competent authority may, at any time, inter alia, require the operator to take the necessary remedial measures, give him the instructions to be followed in order to implement those measures or indeed, as a means of last resort, itself take those measures. 
48 Međutim, člankom 6. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno je da nadležno tijelo, inter alia, u bilo kojem trenutku može zatražiti od operatera da poduzme potrebne mjere otklanjanja, izdati operateru upute o potrebnim mjerama otklanjanja koje treba poduzeti ili u krajnjem slučaju samo poduzeti potrebne mjere otklanjanja.
49 Moreover, Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35 provides that the competent authority is to decide which remedial measures are to be implemented in accordance with Annex II to the directive, and do so with the cooperation of the relevant operator, as required. 
49 Osim toga, člankom 7. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno je da nadležno tijelo odlučuje koje će se mjere otklanjanja primjenjivati u skladu s Prilogom II. direktivi i to, prema potrebi, u suradnji s dotičnim operaterom.
50 According to Article 11 of Directive 2004/35, the duty to determine which remedial measures should be taken with reference to Annex II to the directive rests, in any event and as a means of last resort, with the competent authority. 
50 Prema članku 11. Direktive 2004/35 obveza određivanja mjera otklanjanja koje treba poduzeti prema Prilogu II. direktivi u svakoj situaciji i u krajnjem slučaju ostaje na nadležnom tijelu.
51 In those circumstances, as the Advocate General pointed out at points 141 and 142 of her Opinion, the competent authority must be regarded as also being entitled to alter environmental remedial measures previously adopted, and to do so on its own initiative, that is, even without an initial proposal from the operator. 
51 U tim okolnostima, kako je nezavisna odvjetnica istaknula u točkama 141. i 142. svojeg mišljenja, valja smatrati da nadležno tijelo ima pravo izmijeniti prethodno usvojene mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu, te to učiniti na vlastitu inicijativu, to jest, čak i bez početnog prijedloga operatera.
In fact, that authority may find in practice, in particular, that it is necessary to take measures in addition to those already adopted, and even reach the conclusion that the measures originally decided upon are ineffective and that other measures are necessary to remedy specific environmental pollution. 
Zapravo, u praksi nadležno tijelo može uvidjeti osobito da je potrebno poduzeti dodatne mjere, uz one već usvojene, pa čak i zaključiti da izvorno usvojene mjere nisu djelotvorne te da su za otklanjanje određenog onečišćenja okoliša potrebne druge mjere.
52 However, recital 24 in the preamble to Directive 2004/35 states that, in implementing and enforcing effective means for the application of the environmental liability mechanism laid down by the directive, the legitimate interests of the relevant operators and other interested parties must be adequately safeguarded. 
52 Međutim, u uvodnoj izjavi 24. Direktive 2004/35 navodi se da pri primjeni i provedbi djelotvornih sredstava za primjenu mehanizma odgovornosti za okoliš utvrđenog tom Direktivom treba osigurati odgovarajuću zaštitu legitimnih interesa relevantnih operatera i ostalih zainteresiranih strana.
53 Whereas Article 7(4) of Directive 2004/35 requires the competent authority, in all circumstances, to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land remedial measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account, Article 7, in particular Article 7(2), is not worded in the same terms with regard to the operator affected by the remedial measure which the authority intends to impose on him. 
53 Dok se člankom 7. stavkom 4. Direktive 2004/35 od nadležnog tijela traži da [u svim okolnostima] poziva osobito osobe na čijem će se zemljištu provoditi mjere otklanjanja da daju primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir, članak 7., a osobito njegov stavak 2., ne kaže isto u pogledu operatera na kojeg se odnose mjere otklanjanja koje mu tijelo namjerava nametnuti.
54 However, the principle of the right to be heard, whose observance is ensured by the Court, requires a public authority to hear interested parties before adopting a decision which concerns them (see Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P Land Oberösterreich and Austria v Commission [2007] ECR I-7141, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 
54 Međutim, , Sud osigurava poštovanje načela saslušanja stranke, a to načelo zahtijeva da javno tijelo sasluša zainteresirane strane prije donošenja odluke koja ih se tiče (vidjeti presudu od 13. rujna 2007., Land Oberösterreich i Austrija/Komisija, C-439/05 P i C-454/05 P, Zb., str. I-7141., t. 35. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
55 Accordingly, even though Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35 does not expressly state that the relevant operator has the right to be heard in all circumstances, it must be acknowledged that that provision cannot be interpreted as meaning that, in determining remedial measures, including those referred to in Article 6(2)(c) and (d) of the directive, the competent authority is not required to give the operator the opportunity to be heard. 
55 U skladu s tim, iako se u članku 7. stavku 2. Direktive 2004/35 ne navodi izričito da dotični operater ima pravo na očitovanje u svim okolnostima, mora se priznati da se ta odredba ne može tumačiti tako da znači da pri određivanju mjera otklanjanja, uključujući one iz članka 6. stavka 2. podstavaka (c) i (d) te direktive, nadležno tijelo ne mora operateru dati mogućnost da se očituje.
56 It follows that, in order to alter substantially environmental recovery measures already approved by the competent authority, which the authority is authorised to do under Directive 2004/35, Article 7(2) of the directive requires the authority to give the operators on whom such measures are imposed the opportunity to be heard, except where the urgency of the environmental situation requires immediate action on the part of the competent authority. 
56 Iz toga slijedi da se, da bi nadležno tijelo značajno izmijenilo mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje je već odobrilo, na što u skladu s Direktivom 2004/35 ima pravo, člankom 7. stavkom 2. te Direktive zahtijeva od tijela da operaterima kojima te mjere nameće pruži priliku za očitovanje, osim ako zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu nadležno tijelo mora djelovati bez odgode.
Moreover, Article 7(4) of the directive provides that the competent authority is required to invite, inter alia, the persons on whose land such measures are to be carried out to submit their observations and to take them into account. 
Osim toga, u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 4. te direktive nadležno tijelo dužno je pozvati osobito osobe na čijem će se zemljištu te mjere provoditi da daju primjedbe i te primjedbe uzima u obzir.
57 As regards the factors to be taken into account in the procedure for implementing the necessary recovery measures, it is apparent from Articles 7(2) and 11(2) of Directive 2004/35 that the competent authority is required to assess the significance of the damage and to determine such measures with reference to Annex II to the directive. 
57 U pogledu čimbenika koje treba uzeti u obzir u postupku primjene potrebnih mjera otklanjanja, iz članka 7. stavka 2. i članka 11. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/35 proizlazi da je na nadležnom tijelu da procijeni značaj štete i odredi takve mjere, i to s obzirom na Prilog II. toj direktivi.
58 Annex II to Directive 2004/35 sets out a common framework to be followed by the competent authority in order to choose the most appropriate measures to ensure that environmental damage is remedied. 
58 U Prilogu II. Direktivi 2004/35 utvrđen je zajednički okvir koji nadležno tijelo treba primjenjivati kod odabira najprimjerenijih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu. U odjeljku 1.3.1.
Section 1.3.1. of the Annex states that the remedial options `should be evaluated, using best available technologies' based on a range of criteria set out in that section. 
Priloga navodi se da mogućnosti otklanjanja štete „treba procijeniti, primjenjujući najbolje raspoložive tehnologije" na temelju niza kriterija utvrđenih u tom odjeljku.
59 The legislature of the European Union has not set out in a precise and detailed manner the specific methodology to be followed by the competent authority in determining recovery measures, principally because, as is apparent from recital 24 in the preamble to Directive 2004/35, in order to discharge the duty imposed on it under the system set up by the directive, the competent authority must have appropriate discretionary powers to assess the significance of the damage and to determine which remedial measures should be taken. 
59 Zakonodavac Unije nije precizno i detaljno utvrdio posebnu metodologiju koje se nadležno tijelo treba pridržavati kod određivanja mjera otklanjanja štete, prvenstveno zato jer, kako proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 24. Direktive 2004/35, radi obavljanja dužnosti koja mu je povjerena u okviru sustava iz te direktive, nadležno tijelo mora imati odgovarajuće diskrecijsko pravo kako bi procijenilo značaj štete i odredilo koje mjere otklanjanja bi trebalo poduzeti.
However, for that purpose, Annex II to the directive sets out a number of factors considered relevant by the legislature, which must therefore be taken into account by the competent authority, although the implications of those factors for the authority in a specific instance of pollution are not stated. 
Međutim, u tu svrhu u Prilogu II. direktivi utvrđen je niz čimbenika koje zakonodavac smatra bitnima pa ih stoga nadležno tijelo treba uzeti u obzir, iako nisu navedene posljedice tih čimbenika za tijelo u konkretnom slučaju onečišćenja.
60 Where the competent authority is called upon, in the performance of the duties entrusted to it by the directive in question, to make complex assessments, its discretion applies also, to a certain extent, to the finding of facts underlying its action (see, by analogy, Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council [1980] ECR 3333, paragraph 25; Case C-120/97 Upjohn [1999] ECR I-223, paragraph 34; and Case C-425/08 Enviro Tech (Europe) [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 62). 
60 U tom smislu, kada je nadležno tijelo pozvano da u izvršavanju dužnosti koje su mu povjerene predmetnom direktivom provede složene procjene, njegovo diskrecijsko pravo primjenjuje se, do određene mjere, i na utvrđivanje činjenica na kojima se temelji njegovo djelovanje (vidjeti po analogiji presude od 29. listopada 1980., Roquette Frères/Vijeće, 138/79, Zb., str. 3333., t. 25.; od 21. siječnja 1999., Upjohn, C-120/97, Zb., str. I-223., t. 34. i od 15. listopada 2009., Enviro Tech (Europe), C-425/08, Zb., I-10035., t. 62.)
61 In exercising that discretion, the competent authority is nevertheless required, in such circumstances, to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case (see, by analogy, Case C-269/90 Technische Universität München [1991] ECR I-5469, paragraph 14, and Case C-405/07 P Netherlands v Commission [2008] ECR I-8301, paragraph 56). 
61 Osim toga, primjenjujući svoje diskrecijsko pravo nadležno tijelo u takvim okolnostima ipak ima obvezu pažljivo i nepristrano ispitati sve relevantne elemente konkretnog predmeta (vidjeti po analogiji presude od 21. studenog 1991., Technische Universität München, C-269/90, Zb., str. I-5469., t. 14. i od 6. studenog 2008., Nizozemska/Komisija, C-405/07 P, Zb., str. I-8301., t. 56.).
62 In those circumstances, where the question arises as to the choice between different remedial options, which is the case where the competent authority intends to alter remedial measures which it had adopted previously, the authority is required, in accordance with Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/35, in conjunction with Section 1.3.1 of Annex II to the directive, to assess each of those options on the basis, inter alia, of the criteria set out in that section. 
62 U tim okolnostima, ako se postavi pitanje odabira između različitih mogućnosti otklanjanja, što je slučaj ako nadležno tijelo namjerava izmijeniti mjere za otklanjanje štete koje je prethodno usvojilo, na tijelom je tijelu u skladu s člankom 7. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/35 u vezi s odjeljkom 1.3.1. Priloga II. direktivi da procijeni te mogućnosti na temelju, osobito, kriterija utvrđenih u tom odjeljku.
63 Accordingly, where the competent authority intends to alter substantially measures for remedying environmental damage which were chosen at the conclusion of a procedure carried out on a consultative basis with the operators concerned and which have already been implemented or begun to be put into effect, that is, where the remedial option has been changed, that authority is required, in principle, to take account of the criteria set out at Section 1.3.1. of Annex II to Directive 2004/35 and, in accordance with Article 11(4) of the directive, must also state in the decision which it adopts in that connection the exact grounds on which its choice is based and, where appropriate, the grounds which justify the fact that there was no need for a detailed examination in the light of those criteria or that it was not possible to carry out such an examination due, for example, to the urgency of the environmental situation. 
63 U skladu s tim, ako nadležno tijelo namjerava bitno izmijeniti mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje su odabrane nakon postupka provedenog na osnovi savjetovanja s dotičnim operaterima, a koje su već provedene ili su se počele provoditi, to jest, ako je promijenjen način otklanjanja, tijelo je u načelu dužno uzeti u obzir kriterije utvrđene u odjeljku 1.3.1. Priloga II. Direktivi 2004/35 i, u skladu s člankom 11. stavkom 4. te direktive, u odluci koju donese u vezi s time navesti i točne razloge svog odabira te, prema potrebi, razloge kojima se opravdava činjenica da nije bilo potrebe za detaljnom procjenom s obzirom na te kriterije ili da takvu procjenu nije bilo moguće provesti, na primjer zbog hitnosti situacije u okolišu.
64 In particular, the competent authority must ensure that it is in fact possible, as a result of the option finally chosen, to achieve the best results from an environmental point of view, without thereby causing the operators concerned to incur manifestly disproportionate costs by comparison with those they had or would have had to incur in connection with the first option chosen by that authority. 
64 Nadležno tijelo osobito treba osigurati da se primjenom konačno odabrane opcije stvarno mogu postići najbolji rezultati sa stajališta okoliša, a da se time dotičnim operaterima ne uzrokuju jasno neproporcionalni troškovi u usporedbi s onima koje su već imali ili bi ih imali u vezi s prvom mogućnošću koju je to tijelo odabralo.
However, such considerations are irrelevant where the authority can demonstrate that the option originally chosen was, in any event, inappropriate for the purpose of restoring, rehabilitating or replacing damaged natural resources and/or impaired services, for the purpose of Article 2(11) of Directive 2004/35. 
Međutim, takva su razmatranja nebitna ako tijelo može dokazati da je izvorno odabrana mogućnost bila u svakom slučaju neprimjerena za ponovnu uspostavu stanja, sanaciju ili zamjenu oštećenih prirodnih dobara i/ili oštećenih funkcija u smislu članka 2. stavka 11. Direktive 2004/35.