natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien dismissed the action in its entirety on the ground that the rights relied upon were time-barred. 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. 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. As regards the application for a declaration of liability in respect of future damage, that court found that that application was not time-barred. 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. 
16 The Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien je tužbu u cijelosti odbio zbog toga što su prava na koja se ona poziva zastarjela. 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. 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. Što se tiče zahtjeva u pogledu utvrđivanja odgovornosti za buduće štete, navedeni je sud utvrdio da taj zahtjev nije zastario. 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.
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:
‘Is Article 3 of Directive 85/337 …, as amended by Directive 97/11 … and by Directive 2003/35 …, to be interpreted as meaning that: 
„Treba li članak 3. 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?” [neslužbeni prijevod]
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. 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. 
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. 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.
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. Therefore, it is necessary to examine, in particular, the effects of a project on the use of material assets by human beings. 
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. Dakle, treba ispitati posebno utjecaj projekta na čovjekovu uporabu materijalnih dobara.
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. 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. 
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. 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. 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. 
29 Stoga valja uzeti u obzir samo one utjecaje na materijalna dobra koji bi zbog svoje prirode isto tako mogli utjecati na okoliš. 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.
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). 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. 
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.). 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.
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. 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. 
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. 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.
37 As regards a right to compensation for such pecuniary damage, it follows from the Court’s settled case-law that, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, Member States are required to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of European Union law. In that regard, the Court has already held that, in order to remedy the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of a project within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, it is for the national court to determine whether it is possible under national law for a consent already granted to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project in question to an assessment of its environmental impacts, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim compensation for the harm suffered (see Wells, paragraphs 66 to 69). 
37 Što se tiče prava na naknadu takve imovinske štete, iz ustaljene prakse Suda proizlazi da, prema načelu lojalne suradnje utvrđenom u članku 4. stavku 3. UEU-a, države članice imaju obvezu otklanjanja protupravnih posljedica povreda prava Unije. U tom smislu, Sud je već presudio da je, kako bi se ispravilo neprovođenje procjene utjecaja projekta na okoliš u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337, na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi je li prema unutarnjem pravu moguće već dani pristanak opozvati ili suspendirati kako bi se predmetni projekt podvrgnuo procjeni s obzirom na njegov utjecaj na okoliš u skladu sa zahtjevima iz Direktive 85/337 ili, alternativno, ako je pojedinac s time suglasan, postoji li mogućnost da taj pojedinac zatraži naknadu za pretrpljenu štetu (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Wells, t. od 66. do 69.).
40 It must, however, be pointed out that European Union law confers on individuals, under certain conditions, a right to compensation for damage caused by breaches of European Union law. According to the Court’s settled case-law, the principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the treaties on which the European Union is based (see Case C-429/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-12167, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited). 
40 Međutim, valja napomenuti da pravo Unije pod određenim uvjetima pojedincima daje pravo na naknadu štete uzrokovane povredom prava Unije. Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, načelo odgovornosti države za gubitak ili štetu koju pojedincima uzrokuje povredom prava Unije koja joj se može pripisati, inherentno je sustavu ugovora na kojima se temelji Unija (vidjeti presudu od 25. studenoga 2010., Fuß, C‑429/09, Zb., str. I-12167., t. 45. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
"41 In that respect, the Court has repeatedly held that individuals who have been harmed have a right to reparation if three conditions are met: the rule of European Union law infringed must be intended to confer rights on them; the breach of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals (see, Fuß, paragraph 47, and Case C-568/08 Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie and Others [2010] ECR I-12655, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited)." 
41 S tim u vezi, Sud je već više puta presudio da oštećeni pojedinci imaju pravo na odštetu kada se ispune tri uvjeta, odnosno kada povrijeđeno pravo Unije ima za cilj dodijeliti im prava, kada je povreda dovoljno ozbiljna i kada postoji kauzalna veza između te povrede i štete koju je pretrpio pojedinac (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Fußt., t. 47. i presudu od 9. prosinca 2010., Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie i dr., C-568/08, Zb., str. I-12655., t. 87. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
45 However, as indicated in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, the existence of a direct causal link between the breach in question and the damage sustained by the individuals is, in addition to the determination that the breach of European Union law is sufficiently serious, an indispensable condition governing the right to compensation. The existence of that direct causal link is also a matter for the national courts to ascertain, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court. 
45 Međutim, kako je navedeno u točki 41. ove presude, osim procjenom da je povreda pravila prava Unije dovoljno ozbiljna, pravo na naknadu nužno je uvjetovano i postojanjem izravne kauzalne veze između dotične povrede i štete koju pojedinci trpe. Utvrđivanje postojanja te izravne kauzalne veze u skladu s uputama koje im je dao Sud isto je tako i na nacionalnim sudovima.
46 To that end, the nature of the rule breached must be taken into account. In the present case, that rule prescribes an assessment of the environmental impact of a public or private project, but does not lay down the substantive rules in relation to the balancing of the environmental effects with other factors or prohibit the completion of projects which are liable to have negative effects on the environment. Those characteristics suggest that the breach of Article 3 of Directive 85/337, that is to say, in the present case, the failure to carry out the assessment prescribed by that article, does not, in principle, by itself constitute the reason for the decrease in the value of a property. 
46 U tom smislu, valja uzeti u obzir prirodu povrijeđenog pravila. U ovom slučaju to pravilo propisuje procjenu utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš, ali ne utvrđuje materijalna pravila u vezi s uravnoteženjem utjecaja na okoliš s ostalim faktorima niti zabranjuje provedbu projekata koji bi mogli negativno utjecati na okoliš. Te značajke ukazuju na to da povreda članka 3. Direktive 85/337, odnosno u ovom slučaju, neprovođenje procjene koju propisuje taj članak, u načelu, samo po sebi ne predstavlja razlog za smanjenje vrijednosti nekretnine.
47 Consequently, it appears that, in accordance with European Union law, the fact that an environmental impact assessment was not carried out, in breach of the requirements of Directive 85/337, does not, in principle, by itself confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of environmental effects. However, it is ultimately for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts of the dispute before it, to determine whether the requirements of European Union law applicable to the right to compensation, in particular the existence of a direct causal link between the breach alleged and the damage sustained, have been satisfied. 
47 Zbog toga izgleda da, u skladu s pravom Unije, činjenica da, protivno zahtjevima Direktive 85/337, procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije bila provedena, u načelu, sama po sebi ne daje pojedincu pravo na naknadu isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine do kojeg je došlo zbog utjecaja na okoliš. Međutim, samo je nacionalni sudac, kao jedina osoba kompetentna ocijeniti činjenice u sporu koji se pred njim vodi, nadležan utvrditi jesu li ispunjeni zahtjevi iz prava Unije koji se primjenjuju na pravo na naknadu, a posebno postojanje izravne kauzalne veze između navodne povrede i pretrpljene štete.
48 The answer to the questions referred is therefore that Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets. However, pecuniary damage, in so far as it is the direct economic consequence of the effects on the environment of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337. The fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of the requirements of that directive, does not, in principle, by itself, according to European Union law, and without prejudice to rules of national law which are less restrictive as regards State liability, confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of the environmental effects of that project. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the requirements of European Union law applicable to the right to compensation, including the existence of a direct causal link between the breach alleged and the damage sustained, have been satisfied. 
48 Stoga na postavljena pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 3. Direktive 85/337 treba tumačiti u smislu da procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena tim člankom, ne obuhvaća procjenu utjecaja koji predmetni projekt ima na vrijednost materijalnih dobara. Međutim, imovinska šteta, ako je ona neposredna ekonomska posljedica utjecaja na okoliš javnog ili privatnog projekta, obuhvaćena je ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići Direktivom 85/337. Činjenica da procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije bila provedena, što je protivno zahtjevima Direktive 85/337, u načelu, sama po sebi, prema pravu Unije i ne dovodeći u pitanje pravila nacionalnog prava koja su manje restriktivna u pogledu odgovornosti države, ne daje pojedincu pravo na naknadu isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine do kojeg je došlo zbog utjecaja tog projekta na okoliš. Međutim, na nacionalnom je sudu da utvrdi jesu li ispunjeni zahtjevi iz prava Unije koji se primjenjuju na pravo na naknadu, a posebno postojanje izravne kauzalne veze između navodne povrede i pretrpljene štete.