natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
However, in order to adopt such a decision, that authority: 
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;
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. 
i - 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.
68 By its third question, the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia asks whether Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as precluding 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. 
68 Trećim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev pita treba li Direktivu 2004/35 tumačiti tako da joj je 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.
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. 
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.
Such a practice would impose an excessive restriction on their right to property and would be contrary to the principle of proportionality. 
Takvom bi se praksom nametnulo pretjerano ograničenje njihovog prava vlasništva, a ta bi praksa bila protivna načelu proporcionalnosti.
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. 
Vlastiti interes operatera u provođenju mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu leži upravo u očekivanju da na svojem zemljištu nastavi produktivnu djelatnost.
Moreover, the land of the applicants in the main proceedings has already been decontaminated or indeed has never been polluted. 
Osim toga, zemljište tužitelja u glavnom postupku već je dekontaminirano ili stvarno nikada nije bilo onečišćeno.
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. 
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
It submits that such measures could even be outside the scope of EU law. 
Ona tvrdi da bi takve mjere čak mogle biti isključene iz područja primjene prava Unije.
72 As a preliminary point, it should be noted, first, that, as is apparent from the information provided by the referring court, the pollution in question in the main proceedings is wholly exceptional both in terms of its extent and the seriousness of its impact on the environment. 
72 Uvodno valja napomenuti da je, prvo, kako je vidljivo iz informacija koje je dostavio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, po svojem karakteru predmetno onečišćenje iz glavnog postupka potpuno izvanredno i po opsegu i po težini utjecaja na okoliš.
73 Second, even if, as the applicants in the main proceedings maintain, the remedial measures in question do not affect their land because it has already been decontaminated or was never polluted, the fact remains that that land is adjacent to the whole shoreline at which those remedial measures are directed and any new activity on that land could render the decontamination of the whole area more difficult. 
73 Drugo, valja podsjetiti da, čak i ako se, kako tvrde tužitelji u glavnom postupku, predmetne mjere otklanjanja ne odnose na njihovo zemljište budući da je ono već dekontaminirano ili nikada nije bilo onečišćeno, ipak ostaje činjenica da se radi o susjednom zemljištu uzduž cijele obale na koju su usmjerene te mjere otklanjanja štete pa bi bilo kakva nova djelatnost na tom zemljištu mogla otežati dekontaminaciju cijelog područja.
74 As already stated at paragraphs 37 and 40 above, if the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia reaches the conclusion that Directive 2004/35 is not applicable ratione temporis and/or ratione materiæ in the cases pending before it, such a situation will then be governed by national law, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty and without prejudice to other secondary legislation. 
74 Kako je već navedeno u prethodnim točkama 37. i 40., ako sud koji je uputio zahtjev zaključi da Direktiva 2004/35 nije primjenjiva ratione temporis i/ili ratione materiæ u predmetima u kojima on odlučuje, to će značiti da se na tu situaciju primjenjuje nacionalno pravo, uz poštovanje pravila iz Ugovora i ne dovodeći u pitanje druge akte sekundarnog prava.
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
Where appropriate, the competent authority has special powers to oblige them to do so or to take such measures itself. 
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. 
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.
However, according to those authorities, the pollution affecting the Augusta roadstead derives from that land, since it has spread into the sea. 
Međutim, prema mišljenju tih istih tijela, onečišćenje koje pogađa sidrište Augusta potječe s tog zemljišta s obzirom na to da se proširilo u more.
78 In exceptional circumstances, such as those described at paragraphs 72 and 73 above, Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as allowing the competent authority to require the operators on the land adjacent to the whole shoreline at which the remedial measures are directed to implement those measures themselves. 
78 U iznimnim okolnostima, kao što su one opisane u prethodnim točkama 72. i 73., Direktivu 2004/35 treba tumačiti tako da je nadležnom tijelu dopušteno da od operatera sa susjednih zemljišta uzduž cijele obale na koju su usmjerene mjere otklanjanja zahtijeva da sami provedu te mjere.
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. 
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.
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. 
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. 
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.
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). 
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.).
82 In those circumstances, it may be justified to make the right of the operators concerned to use their land subject to the condition that they implement the necessary environmental remedial measures, in order to oblige them actually to take those measures. 
82 U tim okolnostima može biti opravdano pravo operaterâ na uporabu zemljišta dotičnih operatera uvjetovati izvršenjem potrebnih mjera otklanjanja štete u okolišu kako bi ih se obvezalo da te mjere zaista i izvrše.
83 As the Italian Government correctly observed, the competent authority has a legitimate right, pending the implementation of environmental remedial measures determined by it, to take any appropriate measures in order to prevent the environmental situation deteriorating further in the area in which such measures are put into effect, or indeed, pursuant to the precautionary principle, to prevent the occurrence or resurgence of further environmental damage in sites adjacent to the areas at which such measures are directed. 
83 U tom pogledu, kao što je to talijanska vlada ispravno istaknula, nadležno tijelo ima legitimno pravo da, dok se ne provedu mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu koje je odredilo, opravdano poduzima odgovarajuće mjere kako bi spriječilo daljnje pogoršanje stanja okoliša na području na kojem se te mjere provode ili, u skladu s načelom opreznosti, kako bi spriječilo nastanak ili ponovnu pojavu daljnje štete u okolišu na područjima koje graniče s površinama na koje su te mjere usmjerene.
84 It may be necessary to make the use of the land of the operators concerned subject to the requirement that they implement remedial measures in relation to sites adjacent to that land which are in need of rehabilitation, in order to prevent other industrial activity, which might aggravate the damage in question or hinder measures aimed at remedying it, being carried out in the vicinity of those sites. 
84 Naime, uvjetovanje uporabe zemljišta dotičnih operatera izvršenjem mjera otklanjanja štete u odnosu na područja koja treba sanirati, a koja graniče s tim zemljištem, može biti potrebno kako bi se spriječilo da se u okolici tih područja obavljaju druge industrijske djelatnosti koje bi mogle povećati predmetnu štetu ili otežati mjere otklanjanja te štete.
85 It follows that it is for the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia to ascertain whether, in the cases before it, the suspension of certain property rights of the operators in respect of their land adjacent to the whole shoreline at which remedial environmental measures are directed is justified by the objective of preventing a deterioration of the environmental situation in the area in which the remedial environmental measures are implemented, namely in the Augusta roadstead, or, pursuant to the precautionary principle, by the objective of preventing the occurrence or resurgence of further environmental damage to that land. 
85 Iz toga slijedi da je na sudu koji je uputio zahtjev da utvrdi je li, u sporovima iz glavnog postupka, suspenzija određenih preduvjeta povezanih s pravom vlasništva operatera nad vlastitim zemljištem opravdana ciljem sprečavanja pogoršanja stanja u okolišu na području na kojem se primjenjuju mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu, tj. u sidrištu ili, u skladu s načelom opreznosti, ciljem sprečavanja nastanka ili ponovne pojave daljnje štete u okolišu na tom susjednom zemljištu, uzduž cijele obale na koju su usmjerene mjere otklanjanja štete u okolišu.
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.).
87 It is clear that under Directive 2004/35 the operators concerned must carry out the remedial measures determined by the competent authority and the authority must be able to oblige them to do so. 
87 U tom pogledu, valja utvrditi da u skladu s Direktivom 2004/35 dotični operateri moraju provesti mjere otklanjanja koje je odredilo nadležno tijelo, a tijelo mora imati mogućnost da ih na to obveže.
88 Admittedly, Article 6(2)(e) and the first subparagraph of Article 8(2) of Directive 2004/35 provide that the competent authority may itself take the necessary remedial measures and recover the cost of such measures by means of security over property or other appropriate guarantees. 
88 Točno je da je člankom 6. stavkom 2. podstavkom (e) i prvim podstavkom članka 8. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/35 predviđeno da nadležno tijelo može sâmo poduzeti potrebne mjere otklanjanja i naplatiti troškove tih mjera pokrićem u imovini ili drugim primjerenim jamstvima.
89 However, it should be pointed out that that is simply one option available to the competent authority. 
89 Međutim, treba istaknuti da je to samo jedna od mogućnosti dostupnih nadležnom tijelu.
It might prefer to require the operators in question to implement the necessary recovery measures rather than implement them itself. 
Ono može odlučiti da od dotičnih operatera zatraži da provedu potrebne mjere otklanjanja štete umjesto da ih provede sâmo.