natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 13 Since 1997, Ms Leth, the applicant in the main proceedings, has been the owner of a property situated within the security zone of Vienna-Schwechat airport. 
Glavni postupak i prethodna pitanja 13 Od 1997. J. Leth, tužiteljica u glavnom postupku, vlasnica je nekretnine koja se nalazi u sigurnosnoj zoni zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat.
She lives in the house built on that property. 
Ona živi u kući izgrađenoj na toj nekretnini.
14 Since the accession of the Republic of Austria to the European Union, on 1 January 1995, the authorities of the defendants in the main proceedings have, without carrying out environmental impact assessments, consented to and completed several projects relating to the development and extension of Vienna-Schwechat airport. 
14 Od pristupanja Republike Austrije Europskoj uniji, 1. siječnja 1995., nadležna tijela tuženika u glavnom postupku odobrila su i izvela nekoliko projekata povezanih s uređenjem i proširenjem zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat bez provođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
By decision of 21 August 2001, the Minister-President of Land Niederösterreich expressly stated that no environmental impact assessment procedure was necessary in relation to the continued development and certain extensions of that airport. 
Odlukom od 21. kolovoza 2001. ministar predsjednik Land Niederösterreich (pokrajine Donje Austrije) izričito je izjavio da za nastavak uređenja i određenih proširenja zračne luke nije potreban postupak procjene utjecaja na okoliš.
15 In 2009, Ms Leth brought an action before the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna) against the two defendants in the main proceedings, in which she sought payment by them of EUR 120 000 in respect of the decrease in the value of her property, in particular as a result of aircraft noise, and a declaration that the defendants will be liable for any future damage, including damage to her health, arising from the late and incomplete transposition of Directive 85/337, Directive 97/11, and Directive 2003/35, and from the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment before giving the various consents relating to the development of Vienna-Schwechat airport. 
15 Godine 2009. J. Leth podnijela je Landesgerichtu für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regionalnom civilnom sudu u Beču) tužbu protiv dva tuženika u glavnom postupku, kojom je zahtijevala da joj isplate 120.000 eura radi smanjenja vrijednosti njezine nekretnine, posebno zbog buke zrakoplova, te da se utvrdi da će tuženici biti odgovorni za svaku buduću štetu, uključujući štetu po njezino zdravlje, koja nastane zbog nepravovremenog i nepotpunog prenošenja Direktive 85/337, Direktive 97/11 i Direktive 2003/35 i zbog neprovođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš prije davanja različitih suglasnosti vezanih uz uređenje zračne luke Vienna-Schwechat.
The defendants in the main proceedings have contended that their authorities acted lawfully and without negligence, and that the claim brought is time-barred. 
Tuženici u glavnom postupku tvrdili su da su njihova nadležna tijela postupila zakonito i bez nemara, te da je podneseni zahtjev zastario.
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien dismissed the action in its entirety on the ground that the rights relied upon were time-barred. 
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien je tužbu u cijelosti odbio zbog toga što su prava na koja se ona poziva zastarjela.
By way of a part-judgment on the appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Higher Regional Court, Vienna) confirmed the dismissal of the claim for payment of EUR 120 000, but set aside the dismissal of the claim in relation to the application for a declaration that the defendants in the main proceedings would be liable for future damage, referring the case back to the first-instance court in order for it to rule afresh on that latter application. 
Djelomičnom presudom na žalbu, Oberlandesgericht Wien (Viši regionalni sud, Beč) potvrdio je odbijanje zahtjeva u pogledu plaćanja 120.000 eura, ali je poništio odbijanje zahtjeva u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti tuženika u glavnom postupku za buduće štete i vratio predmet prvostupanjskom sudu na ponovno odlučivanje o tom drugom zahtjevu.
In that respect, the Oberlandesgericht Wien found that the claim for payment of EUR 120 000 related only to purely pecuniary damage, which did not come within the objective of protection pursued by the provisions of European Union law, in particular those of the relevant directives, and by national law. 
S tim u vezi, Oberlandesgericht Wien utvrdio je da se zahtjev u pogledu plaćanja 120.000 eura odnosi isključivo na imovinsku štetu koja nije obuhvaćena ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići odredbama prava Unije, osobito odredbama relevantnih direktiva, kao ni nacionalnim pravom.
As regards the application for a declaration of liability in respect of future damage, that court found that that application was not time-barred. 
Što se tiče zahtjeva u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti za buduće štete, navedeni je sud utvrdio da taj zahtjev nije zastario.
Subsequently, an appeal on a point of law (`Revision') against the dismissal of the claim for that payment and an appeal against the referral back of the application for a declaration of liability were brought before the referring court. 
Nakon toga je sudu koji je uputio zahtjev podnesena žalba povodom pravnog pitanja („revision") protiv odbijanja zahtjeva u pogledu tog plaćanja kao i žalba protiv toga da se zahtjev u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti vrati na prethodno odlučivanje.
17 The referring court takes the view that the decision on those claims, which are in any event not time-barred in their entirety, depends on whether the duty of the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to carry out an environmental impact assessment, laid down in both European Union law and national law, is liable to protect the individuals concerned against purely pecuniary damage caused by a project in respect of which such an assessment has not been carried out. 
17 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatra da odluka o tim zahtjevima, koji ni u kojem slučaju nisu u potpunosti zastarjeli, ovisi o tome je li obveza nadležnih tijela predmetne države članice da provedu procjenu utjecaja na okoliš, koju propisuje pravo Unije i nacionalno pravo, namijenjena zaštiti dotičnih pojedinaca od isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane projektom za koji ta procjena nije provedena.
18 It is in that context that the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
18 U tom je kontekstu Oberster Gerichtshof (Vrhovni sud, Austrija) odlučio prekinuti postupak i Sudu uputiti sljedeća prethodna pitanja: „Treba li članak 3.
`Is Article 3 of Directive 85/337 ..., as amended by Directive 97/11 ... and by Directive 2003/35 ..., to be interpreted as meaning that: 
Direktive 85/337 [...], kako je izmijenjen Direktivom 97/11 [...] i Direktivom 2003/35 [...] tumačiti u smislu da:
1. the term `material assets' covers only their substance or also their value; 
1. pojam „materijalna dobra" obuhvaća samo njihov sadržaj ili i njihovu vrijednost;
2. the environmental impact assessment serves also to protect an individual against pecuniary damage as a result of a decrease in the value of his property?' 
2. procjena utjecaja na okoliš služi i za zaštitu pojedinca od imovinske štete nastale zbog smanjenja vrijednosti njegove nekretnine?"
19 By letter of 21 December 2012, the applicant in the main proceedings requested the reopening of the oral procedure, claiming, first, that, in examining - in her Opinion delivered on 8 November 2012 - the issue of whether the environmental impact assessment under Article 3 of Directive 85/337 includes the assessment of the effects of the project under examination on the value of material assets, the Advocate General introduced a new question which had not been posed by the referring court and which had not been the subject of an exchange of views between the interested persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and, as a consequence, the first question as posed by the referring court was not answered. 
19 Dopisom od 21. prosinca 2012., tužiteljica u glavnom postupku zatražila je ponovno otvaranje usmenog postupka tvrdeći, s jedne strane, da je nezavisna odvjetnica u svojem mišljenju od 8. studenoga 2012., razmatrajući pitanje o tome uključuje li procjena utjecaja na okoliš, u skladu s člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, procjenu utjecaja predmetnog projekta na vrijednost materijalnih dobara, otvorila novo pitanje koje sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije postavio i o kojima zainteresirane osobe iz članka 23. Statuta Suda Europske unije nisu raspravljale te da zato na prvo pitanje koje je postavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije odgovoreno.
Secondly, she claims that those interested persons did not have the opportunity to exchange views on the consequences to be drawn from the fact that the public concerned was not informed of the projects at issue and could not, therefore, participate in the decision-making process. 
S druge strane, ona tvrdi da te zainteresirane osobe nisu imale priliku raspravljati o posljedicama činjenice da zainteresirana javnost nije bila obaviještena o predmetnom projektu i da stoga nije mogla sudjelovati u postupku odlučivanja.
20 In that respect, it must be pointed out that, under Article 83 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, after hearing the Advocate General, order the reopening of the oral part of the procedure, in particular if it considers that it lacks sufficient information or where the case has to be decided on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties or the interested persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute. 
20 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti da, u skladu s člankom 83. svojeg Poslovnika, Sud može u svakom trenutku, nakon što sasluša nezavisnu odvjetnicu, odrediti ponovno otvaranje usmenog dijela postupka, osobito ako smatra da ne raspolaže dovoljnom količinom podataka ili ako je u predmetu potrebno odlučiti na temelju argumenta o kojem se nije raspravljalo među strankama ili zainteresiranim osobama iz članka 23. Statuta.
21 In the present case, the Court considers that the request for a preliminary ruling does not need to be examined on the basis of an argument that has not yet been debated before it and that it has all the information necessary to deal with the request for a preliminary ruling. 
21 U ovom predmetu Sud smatra da zahtjev za prethodnu odluku ne treba preispitivati na temelju argumenata o kojima se na tom Sudu nije raspravljalo i da ima sve informacije potrebne za rješavanje zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku.
22 The request by the applicant in the main proceedings that a new hearing be held and her alternative application for leave to submit additional written observations must therefore be dismissed. 
22 Stoga zahtjev tužiteljice u glavnom postupku da se održi nova rasprava i njezin alternativni zahtjev da se podnesu dodatna pisana očitovanja ne treba prihvatiti.
The questions referred to the Court 
O prethodnim pitanjima
23 By its questions, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning, first, that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, includes the assessment of the effects of the project under examination on the value of material assets and, secondly, that the fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of Directive 85/337, confers on an individual a right to compensation for pecuniary damage caused by a decrease in the value of his property resulting from the environmental effects of the project under examination. 
23 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim pitanjima u biti želi ispitati treba li članak 3. Direktive 85/337 tumačiti na način da, s jedne strane, procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena u tom članku, uključuje procjenu utjecaja predmetnog projekta na vrijednost materijalnih dobara i, s druge strane, da ostaje činjenica da procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije provedena, što predstavlja povredu Direktive 85/337, pojedincu daje pravo na naknadu imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine zbog utjecaja predmetnog projekta na okoliš.
24 As regards the term `material assets' within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 85/337, it must be recalled that, according to settled case-law, it follows from the need for a uniform application of European Union law that the terms of a provision of European Union law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see Case C-287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43, and Case C-497/10 PPU Mercredi [2010] ECR I-14309, paragraph 45). 
24 Što se tiče pojma „materijalna dobra" u smislu članka 3. Direktive 85/337, valja napomenuti da iz zahtjeva za jedinstvenom primjenom prava Unije proizlazi da izrazi u nekoj odredbi prava Unije koja [izravno] ne upućuje na pravo država članica, radi utvrđenja njezinog sadržaja i opsega, moraju u pravilu dobiti autonomno i jedinstveno tumačenje na cijelom području Europske unije koje valja dati vodeći računa o kontekstu odredbe i cilju koji se želi postići propisom o kojemu je riječ (vidjeti presude od 19. rujna 2000., Linster, C-287/98 Zb., str. I-6917., t. 43. i od 22. prosinca 2010., Mercredi, C-497/10 PPU, Zb., str. I-14309., t. 45.).
25 Pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 85/337, it is necessary to examine the direct and indirect effects of a project on, inter alia, human beings and material assets and, in accordance with the fourth indent of that article, it is also necessary to examine such effects on the interaction between those two factors. 
25 U skladu s člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, valja ispitati izravne i neizravne utjecaje projekta na, između ostalog, ljude i materijalna dobra te, u skladu s četvrtom alinejom tog članka, isto tako valja ispitati te utjecaje na međudjelovanje ta dva faktora.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine, in particular, the effects of a project on the use of material assets by human beings. 
Dakle, treba ispitati posebno utjecaj projekta na čovjekovu uporabu materijalnih dobara.
26 It follows that, in the assessment of projects such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are liable to result in increased aircraft noise, it is necessary to assess the effects of the latter on the use of buildings by human beings. 
26 Iz toga proizlazi da u procjeni projekata poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, koji mogu prouzročiti povećanje buke zrakoplova, treba procijeniti utjecaj te buke na uporabu zgrada od strane čovjeka.
27 However, as has correctly been pointed out by Land Niederösterreich and by several of the governments which have submitted observations to the Court, an extension of the environmental assessment to the pecuniary value of material assets cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 3 of Directive 85/337 and would also not be in accordance with the purpose of that directive. 
27 Međutim, kao što su to pravilno primijetile Land Niederösterreich i nekoliko vlada koje su Sudu podnijele očitovanja, iz teksta članka 3. Direktive 85/337 ne može se zaključiti da proširenje procjene utjecaja na okoliš obuhvaća i procjenu utjecaja na imovinsku vrijednost materijalnih dobara pa ni ono ne bi značilo bolju usklađenost sa svrhom te direktive.
28 It follows from Article 1(1) of, and from the first, third, fifth and sixth recitals in the preamble to, Directive 85/337 that the purpose of that directive is an assessment of the effects of public and private projects on the environment in order to attain one of the Community's objectives in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life. 
28 Iz članka 1. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337 i iz njezine prve, treće, pete i šeste uvodne izjave proizlazi da je svrha te direktive procjena utjecaja javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš radi postizanja jednog od ciljeva Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša i kvalitete života. Na taj se cilj odnose i podaci koje investitor mora dostaviti u skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1.
The information which must be supplied by the developer in accordance with Article 5(1) of, and Annex IV to, Directive 85/337, as well as the criteria which enable Member States to determine whether small-scale projects, meeting the characteristics laid down in Annex III to that directive, require a environmental assessment, also relate to that purpose. 
Direktive 85/337 i njezinim Prilogom IV., kao i kriteriji na temelju kojih države članice mogu odrediti je li za projekte manjeg razmjera, koji imaju karakteristike utvrđene u Prilogu III. toj direktivi, potrebna procjena utjecaja na okoliš.
29 Consequently, it is necessary to take into account only those effects on material assets which, by their very nature, are also likely to have an impact on the environment. 
29 Stoga valja uzeti u obzir samo one utjecaje na materijalna dobra koji bi zbog svoje prirode isto tako mogli utjecati na okoliš.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 3 of that directive, an environmental impact assessment carried out in accordance with that article is one which identifies, describes and assesses the direct and indirect effects of noise on human beings in the event of use of a property affected by a project such as that at issue in the main proceedings. 
Prema tome, na temelju članka 3. te direktive, procjena utjecaja na okoliš provedena u skladu s tim člankom je procjena kojom se identificiraju, opisuju i procjenjuju izravni i neizravni utjecaji buke na čovjeka u slučaju uporabe nekretnine na koju utječe projekt poput onoga o kojem je riječ u glavnom postupku.
30 It must therefore be held that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in Article 3 of Directive 85/337, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets. 
30 Stoga valja zaključiti da procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena u članku 3. Direktive 85/337, ne obuhvaća procjenu utjecaja koju predmetni projekt ima na vrijednost materijalnih dobara.
31 That finding, however, does not necessarily imply that Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, contrary to the requirements of that directive, in particular an assessment of the effects on one or more of the factors set out in that provision other than that of material assets, does not entitle an individual to any compensation for pecuniary damage which is attributable to a decrease in the value of his material assets. 
31 Taj nalaz, međutim, nužno ne podrazumijeva da članak 3. Direktive 85/337 treba tumačiti na način da činjenica da nije provedena procjena utjecaja na okoliš, osobito procjena utjecaja na jedan ili više faktora navedenih u tom članku koji nisu materijalna dobra, što je u suprotnosti sa zahtjevima te direktive, ne daje pojedincu pravo ni na kakvu naknadu imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegovih materijalnih dobara.
32 It must be recalled, from the outset, that the Court has already ruled that an individual may, where appropriate, rely on the duty to carry out an environmental impact assessment under Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and 4 thereof (see Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, paragraph 61). 
32 Na samom početku valja podsjetiti da je Sud već odlučio da se, prema potrebi, pojedinac može pozvati na obvezu provođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš prema članku 2. stavku 1. Direktive 85/337, u vezi s njezinim člankom 1. stavcima 2. i 4. (vidjeti presudu od 7. siječnja 2004., Wells , C-201/02, Zb., str. I-723., t. 61.).
That directive thus confers on the individuals concerned a right to have the environmental effects of the project under examination assessed by the competent services and to be consulted in that respect. 
Ta direktiva dotičnim pojedincima stoga daje pravo da utjecaj projekta na okoliš daju na procjenu nadležnim službama i da ih se s tim u vezi konzultira.
33 Accordingly, it is necessary to examine whether Article 3 of Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, is intended, in the event of an omission to carry out an environmental impact assessment, to confer on individuals a right to compensation for pecuniary damage such as that invoked by Ms Leth. 
33 U skladu s tim, valja preispitati želi li se člankom 3. Direktive 85/337, u vezi s njezinim člankom 2., u slučaju neprovođenja procjene utjecaja na okoliš, pojedincu dati pravo na naknadu imovinske štete na koje se poziva J. Leth.
34 In that respect, it follows from the third and eleventh recitals in the preamble to Directive 85/337 that the purpose of that directive is to achieve one of the European Union's objectives in the sphere of the protection of the environment and the quality of life and that the effects of a project on the environment must be assessed in order to take account of the concerns to contribute by means of a better environment to the quality of life. 
34 S tim u vezi iz treće i jedanaeste uvodne izjave Direktive 85/337 proizlazi da je svrha te direktive postići jedan od ciljeva Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša i kvalitete života i da utjecaj projekta na okoliš treba procijeniti kako bi se uzela u obzir nastojanja da se putem boljeg okoliša doprinese kvaliteti života.
35 In circumstances where exposure to noise resulting from a project covered by Article 4 of Directive 85/337 has significant effects on individuals, in the sense that a home affected by that noise is rendered less capable of fulfilling its function and the individuals' environment, quality of life and, potentially, health are affected, a decrease in the pecuniary value of that house may indeed be a direct economic consequence of such effects on the environment, this being a matter which must be examined on a case-by-case basis. 
35 U okolnostima kada izloženost buci koja proizlazi iz nekog projekta obuhvaćenog člankom 4. Direktive 85/337 ima značajan utjecaj na neku osobu, u smislu da je zbog utjecaja te buke mogućnost da kuća u kojoj osoba živi ispunjava svoju funkciju smanjena i da to narušava kvalitetu života te osobe i, potencijalno, njezino zdravlje, smanjenje imovinske vrijednosti te kuće zaista može biti neposredna ekonomska posljedica takvog utjecaja na okoliš, što je pitanje koje treba razmatrati od slučaja do slučaja.
36 It must therefore be concluded that the prevention of pecuniary damage, in so far as that damage is the direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337. 
36 Stoga valja zaključiti da je sprečavanje imovinske štete obuhvaćeno ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići Direktivom 85/337, ako je ta šteta neposredna ekonomska posljedica utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš.
As such economic damage is a direct consequence of such effects, it must be distinguished from economic damage which does not have its direct source in the environmental effects and which, therefore, is not covered by the objective of protection pursued by that directive, such as, inter alia, certain competitive disadvantages. 
Budući da je ta ekonomska šteta neposredna posljedica tih djelovanja, valja je razlikovati od ekonomske štete čiji neposredni uzrok ne leži u utjecaju na okoliš i koja stoga nije obuhvaćena ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići tom direktivom, kao što su, između ostaloga, određene teškoće u pogledu konkurentnosti.