natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For the individuals who live near the airport, the parties Abraham and Others, Beaujean and Others and Descamps and Others took part in the written procedure and in the oral procedure, each making sep- arate submissions, as did the respondents SAB and TNT, the Member States Belgium and the Czech Republic, and the Commission.
Ali je sporazum med državo in zasebnim podjetjem, ki je bil podpisan, da bi to podjetje začelo delovati na območju letali�ča z vzletno stezo, dalj�o od 2100 m, ki vsebuje natančen opis infrastrukturnih del, ki naj bi bila opravljena v zvezi z izgradnjo vzletne steze – ne da bi bila ta podalj�ana – in v zvezi z gradnjo nadzornega stolpa, da bi se omogočili leti �irokotrupnih letal 24 ur na dan 365 dni v letu, in ki predvideva tako nočne kot dnevne lete od takrat, ko to podjetje začne delati na letali�ču, projekt v smislu Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kakr�na je veljala pred spremembo z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/EGS z dne 3. marca 1997?
IV — Legal assessment subject to an assessment with regard to their effects. 3
IV – Pravna presoja ali lokacije,verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje. 3
Under Article 4(1) of the EIA directive and point 7 of Annex I, development consent for the construction of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more is necessarily subject to an environmental impact assessment.
V skladu s členom 4(1) Direktive PVO in Prilogo I, točka 7, k tej direktivi je za pridobitev soglasja za izvedbo gradnje letali�č, ki imajo vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več, obvezna presoja vplivov na okolje.
Against this background, the questions asked by the Cour de cassation relate, first of all, to the significance of the agreement regarding the adaptation of the airport to the requirements of freight traffic and, secondly, to whether modifications to an airport which do not affect the runway may be regarded as a project subject to an assessment and whether the airport’s activity is to be taken into account in assessing its effects on the environment.
Vpra�anja Cour de cassation se v tem okviru nana�ajo na pomen sporazuma o prilagoditvi letali�ča potrebam tovornega prometa in na to, ali je mogoče spremembe na letali�ču, ki ne zadevajo vzletne steze, �teti za projekt, pri katerem je treba opraviti presojo, ter ali je treba pri presoji vplivov na okolje upo�tevati dejavnosti letali�ča.
Under Article 4(2) of the EIA directive and points 10 and 12 of Annex II, modifications to such projects and the construction of airfields are not made subject to an assessment on a mandatory basis, but only where the Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
Spremembe tak�nih projektov oziroma gradnja drugih letali�č v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive PVO in Prilogo II, točki 10 oziro- ma 12, k tej direktivi niso obvezno predmet presoje, ampak le, če države članice menijo, da njihove značilnosti tako zahtevajo.
To this end Member States may inter alia specify certain types of projects as being subject to an assessment or may establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine which of the projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be subject to an assessment.
S tem namenom lahko države članice med drugim določijo posebne vrste projektov kot predmet presoje oziroma lahko postavijo merila in/ali pragove, po katerih se določi, katere izmed projektov iz skupin, na�tetih v Prilogi II, se presoja.
Since the interpretation and application of the EIA directive must be guided by the objective laid down in Article 2(1) that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location should be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects, 4 the questions should be answered in reverse order.
Ker je treba pri razlagi in uporabi Direktive PVO upo�tevati cilj iz člena 2(1), da se pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, 4je smiselno na vpra�anja odgovoriti v obratnem vrstnem redu.
See also the judgments cited in footnote 3.
Glej tudi sodbe, navedene v opombi 3.
The Court has consistently held that Article 4(2) of the EIA directive confers on Member States a measure of discretion, the limits of which are to be found in the obligation set out in Article 2(1) of the EIA directive that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location are made
Člen 4(2) Direktive PVO v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso utemeljuje pravico držav članic do proste presoje, ki je omejena z obveznostjo iz člena 2(1) Direktive PVO, da je treba presoditi vplive projektov, ki bodo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti
The doubts of the Cour de cassation are based on the fact that an increase in an airport’s activity is not expressly mentioned in the EIA directive.
Dvomi Cour de Cassation izhajajo iz tega, da povečanje dejavnosti letali�ča ni izrecno omenjeno v Direktivi PVO. Kljub temu iz določb Direktive jasno izhaja, da ga je treba upo�tevati.
I will therefore first examine, under A, whether an airport’s activity or an increase in its activity is to be taken into account in assessing its effects on the environment.
Zato bom najprej pod točko A preučila, ali je treba pri presoji vplivov na okolje upo�tevati dejavnosti letali�ča oziroma njihovo povečanje.
In the light of the answer to that question, the second question will then be considered, under B, regarding the extent to which modifications to an airport are to be regarded as a project subject to an assessment for the purposes of the EIA directive.
Ob upo�tevanju odgovora na to vpra�anje bom potem pod točko B preučila drugo vpra�anje, v kolik�ni meri so spremembe na letali�ču projekt, ki je v smislu Direktive PVO obvezno predmet presoje.
Lastly, under C, I will look at the first question, which concerns a specific feature of the contested works, namely that they were first laid down in an agreement.
Na koncu bom pod točko C obravnavala prvo vpra�anje, ki zadeva posebnost ukrepov, ki so predmet spora. Ti so bili namreč najprej določeni v sporazumu.
The question therefore arises as to how the agreement is to be classified in the EIA directive’s assessment system, in particular whether the effects of agreed works on the environment should possibly have been assessed.
Zato se zastavlja vpra�anje, kako je treba sporazum uvrstiti v sistem presoje Direktive PVO, zlasti, ali bi dogovorjeni ukrepi morda morali biti predmet presoje vplivov na okolje.
A — The third question
A – Tretje odločanje
Under Article 3 of the EIA directive the environmental impact assessment extends to the direct and indirect effects of a project.
Kajti v skladu s členom 3 Direktive PVO se presoja vplivov na okolje nana�a na neposredne in posredne vplive posameznega projekta.
The rules on the information to be provided by the developer under Article 5(1) of the EIA directive show that the notion of indir- ect effects is to be construed broadly and in particular includes the effects of the operation of a project.
Določbe o informacijah, ki jih mora priskrbeti nosilec projekta v skladu s členom 5(1) Direktive PVO, kažejo na to, da je treba pojem posrednih vplivov razumeti �iroko in da zlasti vključuje tudi vplive obratovanja projekta.
Thus, the footnote to point 4 of Annex III states that the description of the effects should cover the direct effects and any indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term, perman- ent and temporary, positive and negative effects of the project.
Tako opomba k točki 4 Priloge III določa, da bi moral opis vplivov zajemati neposredne vplive in vse posredne, sekundarne, kumulativne, kratko-, srednje- in dolgoročne, trajne in začasne, pozitivne in negativne vplive projekta.
Under the third indent of point 1 of Annex III, the estimate of effects includes, by type and quantity, expected residues and emissions resulting from the operation of the project, that is to say from the activity that takes place.
V skladu s Prilogo III, točka 1, tretja alinea, vključujejo vplivi zlasti oceno vrste in količine pričakovanih ostankov in emisij, izhajajočih iz obratovanja projekta, to pomeni iz tamkaj�njih dejavnosti.
It is true that the information under Article 5(1) and Annex III is necessary only where the Member States consider that the information is relevant and that a developer
Informacije so sicer v skladu s čle -nom 5(1) Direktive PVO in Prilogo III k tej direktivi potrebne le, če države članice
By the third question, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether under the EIA directive air traffic at an airport or an increase in traffic is to be taken into account among the effects on the environment.
Predložitveno sodi�če želi s tretjim vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali je v skladu z Direktivo PVO zračni promet na letali�ču oziroma njegovo povečanje del vplivov na okolje, ki jih je treba upo�tevati.
The basis for the question is the claim that the modifications to the infrastructure of Liège-Bierset Airport have resulted in an increase in activity at the airport.
Povod za to je trditev, da naj bi spremembe infrastrukture letali�ča Liège-Bierset pripeljale do povečanja dejavnosti na tem letali�ču.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-2/07
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-2/07 vprašanje za predhodno
B — The second question may reasonably be required to compile that information.
B – Drugo odločanje menijo, da so pomembne in da jih lahko od nosilca projekta upravičeno zahtevajo.
However, the discretion thus conferred on the Member States is not unlimited. 5
Vendar pa pravica do proste presoje, ki je s tem priznana državam članicam, ni neomejena. 5
The second question seeks to ascertain whether modifications to the infrastructure of an existing airport require an environmental impact assessment if they do not include any extension of the runway.
Drugo vpra�anje se nana�a na to, ali je treba pri spremembah infrastrukture obstoječega letali�ča opraviti presojo vplivov na okolje, če ne vključujejo podalj�anja vzletne steze.
It therefore concerns the criteria for determining whether modifications to the infrastructure of an airport require an environmental impact assessment.
Gre torej za to, na podlagi katerih kriterijev je treba odločiti, ali je presoja vplivov na okolje pogoj za spremembe infrastrukture letali�ča.
In the case of an airport, the type and extent of the proposed air traffic and the resulting effects on the environment are relevant.
Pri letali�ču je pomemben načrtovani letalski promet glede na njegovo vrsto in obseg ter tudi iz tega izhajajoči vplivi na okolje.
The developer can also as a rule be expected to provide that information.
Prav tako se lahko praviloma od nosilca projekta upravičeno zahteva, naj zbere te informacije.
Failure to require information on air traffic or on the effects of increased air traffic would therefore be incompatible with the EIA directive.
Odpoved informacijam o letalskem prometu oziroma o vplivih povečanega letalskega prometa zato ne bi bila združljiva z Direktivo PVO.
The construction of an airport under point 7 of Annex I to the EIA directive
Gradnja letali�ča v skladu s Prilogo I, točka 7, k Direktivi PVO
The information thus to be provided on an intended increase in air traffic is to be taken into account in the development consent procedure pursuant to Article 8 of the EIA directive.
Informacije o načrtovanem povečanju letalskega prometa, ki jih je torej treba priskrbeti, se morajo v skladu s členom 8 Direktive PVO upo�tevati v postopku za pridobitev soglasja za izvedbo.
Under Article 4(1) of the EIA directive and point 7 of Annex I, the construction of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more requires an environmental impact assessment.
V skladu s členom 4(1) Direktive PVO in Prilogo I, točka 7, k tej direktivi je gradnja letali�č, ki imajo z vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več, predmet presoje vplivov na okolje.
The answer to the third question must therefore be that the effects of modifications to the infrastructure of an airport on the environment for the purposes of the EIA directive include the increase in the airport’s activity which is thereby sought.
Na tretje vpra�anje je zato treba odgovoriti, da vplivi spremembe infrastrukture letali�ča na okolje v smislu Direktive PVO vključujejo s tem načrtovano povečanje dejavnosti letali�ča.
Although Liège-Bierset Airport already existed before the contested works were agreed and carried out, Beaujean and Others take the view that those works constitute the construction of an airport.
Čeprav je letali�če Liège-Bierset že obstajalo, preden so bili dogovorjeni in izpeljani zadevni ukrepi v obravnavanem primeru, Beaujean in drugi menijo, da gre za gradnjo letali�ča.
The proposed renovation of the main runway, the introduction of a landing system for it and the widening of the parallel runway to 45 metres
Predvidena obnova glavne steze, njena oprema s pristajalnim sistemom in raz�iritev vzporedne steze na 45 metrov naj
The length of the runway determines the types of aircraft that are able to use the airport and thus the likely effects of individual takeoffs and landings.
Dolžina vzletne steze je odločilna za tipe letal, ki lahko uporabljajo letali�če, in s tem za mogoče vplive posameznih vzletov in pristankov.
Larger aircraft require longer runways.
Večja letala potrebujejo dalj�e steze.
However, the number of possible aircraft movements is dependent on other infrastructure elements, for example on the installation of electronic takeoff and landing support systems, and on aircraft handling facilities, available parking bays and air space capacity.
Število mogočih letov pa izhaja iz nadaljnjih elementov infrastrukture, na primer iz opreme z elektronskim podpornim sistemom za vzlete in pristanke, iz objektov za odpremo letal, iz razpoložljivih parkirnih prostorov ter iz zmogljivosti zračnega prostora.
A judgment on a Spanish railway project suggests that a new project may exist even if there are existing installations.
Sodba, ki se nana�a na �panski železni�ki projekt, vsebuje oporne točke za trditev, da gre lahko za nov projekt kljub že obstoječim objektom.
6In that judgment, the Court held that improving an already existing railway line by doubling the original single track was not to be regarded as merely modifying an earlier project for the purposes of point 12 of Annex II to the EIA directive, but as the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic under point 7 of Annex I. It based its position on the likely significant effects of that project on the environment.
6V njej je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da dvotirna izgradnja že obstoječe železni�ke proge ni le sprememba prej�njega projekta v smislu Priloge II, točka 12, k Direktivi PVO, ampak gre za gradnjo daljinske železni�ke proge v skladu s Prilogo I, točka 7. Pri tem se je oprlo na to, da bo ta projekt verjetno pomembno vplival na okolje.
How much an airport is actually used, that is to say demand for air transport ser- vices, also depends on its links with the relevant demand markets and on the competitive position in relation to other comparable service providers.
V kolik�ni meri se letali�če dejansko uporablja, to pomeni, kolik�no je povpra�evanje po storitvah letalskega prometa, je poleg tega odvisno od njegove povezanosti z ustreznimi trgi, za katere obstaja povpra�evanje, in od njegove konkurenčnosti glede na druge primerljive ponudnike storitev.
In principle this idea may be applied to airport projects.
To razmi�ljanje je načelno mogoče prenesti na letali�ke projekte.
Whilst point 7 of Annex I to the EIA directive does mention only the length of the runway as a criterion for the definition of airports, an airport’s effects on the environment, which are the decisive issue in accordance with the directive’s objective, also depend on other factors.
Priloga I, točka 7, k Direktivi PVO sicer poleg pojma letali�ča kot merilo omenja le dolžino vzletne
Nevertheless, construction of an airport can include only works which at least concern parts of the airport.
Kot gradnjo letali�ča pa je mogoče razumeti le ukrepe, ki zadevajo vsaj njegove dele.
airport under point 12 of Annex II. Works in connection with an existing airport can therefore be regarded as the construction of an airport only where they are equivalent to the construction of a new airport in terms of their effects on the environment.
�čem zato lahko �tejejo za gradnjo letali�ča le, če jih je mogoče glede na njihove vplive na okolje enačiti z novogradnjo.
Since that legal instrument does not, however, concern the effects of airports on the environment, but their safety, the notion of an airport for the purposes of the EIA directive must also include installations with environmental relevance which are not covered in Annex 14 to the Convention but are inseparably linked with the core elements defined therein.
Ker pa predmet te ureditve niso vplivi letali�č na okolje, ampak njihova varnost, mora pojem letali�ča v smislu Direktive PVO vključevati tudi objekte, ki vplivajo na okolje, ki jih sicer ne obsega Priloga 14 k navedeni konvenciji, vendar pa so neločljivo povezani s tam opredeljenimi glavnimi sestavnimi deli.
In this respect, regard should be had above all to passenger and freight terminal buildings.
V tem smislu je treba pomisliti predvsem na objekte za odpravo potnikov in tovora.
Consequently, significant extensions to runways which make the airport useable by types of aircraft with much greater effects on the environment, or realignments of runways which result in different takeoff and landing flight paths, might, in particular, be works in connection with existing airports which are to be regarded as the construction of an airport.
Zato kot ukrepi na obstoječih letali�čih, ki �tejejo za gradnjo letali�ča, pridejo v po�tev zlasti občutna podalj�anja vzletnih stez, zaradi česar lahko letali�če uporabljajo tipi letal z občutno večjimi vplivi na okolje, ali prenove vzletnih stez, ki pripeljejo do novih poti letenja pri vzletu in pristanku.
On the other hand, installations which might have been attracted by the air traffic, but have a stronger link to other project categories, such as ground transport connections, hotels, and office and commercial space, should not be attributed to the airport.
Nasprotno pa se k letali�ču ne �tejejo objekti, ki jih je sicer morda pritegnil letalski promet, vendar bolj spadajo k drugim kategorijam projektov, na primer kopenske prometne povezave, hoteli ter pisarni�ke in obrtne povr�ine.
A distinction must also be drawn vis-à-vis modifications to the construction of an
Potrebna je tudi razmejitev od sprememb pri gradnji letali�ča v skladu s Prilogo II, točka 12.
However, it cannot be ruled out either that in exceptional cases works which do not relate directly to the length and alignment of runways increase the airport’s capacity so much that they are equivalent to the construction of a new airport.
Vendar pa tudi ni mogoče izključiti, da v izjemnih primerih ukrepi, ki se ne nana�ajo neposredno na dolžino in opremo vzletnih stez, tako zelo povečajo zmogljivost letali�ča, da jih je mogoče enačiti z novogradnjo.
If the airport was originally jammed for a long time by a few incoming flights because of insufficient handling capacity and parking bays, additional capacity in those areas may give rise to a significant increase in traffic volume.
Če je bilo letali�če prvotno zaradi nezadostnih zmogljivosti pri odpremi in parkirnih povr�in že ob prihodu manj�ega �tevila letal dolgo časa zasedeno, lahko dodatne zmogljivosti na teh področjih povzročijo občutno povečanje obsega prometa.
This could be the case in particular with works to convert former military airfields with long runways for civil use.
To verjetno velja zlasti pri ukrepih, ki na prej�njih voja�kih letali�čih z dolgimi vzletnimi stezami omogočijo uporabo za civilni promet.
Modifications to an airport under point 12 of Annex II and point 7 of Annex I to the EIA directive
Spremembe letali�ča v skladu s Prilogo II, točka 12, Direktivi PVO in Prilogo I, točka 7, k isti direktivi
It cannot be assessed on the basis of the information available to the Court whether the contested works at Liège-Bierset Airport were, in extent, a new construction.
Na podlagi podatkov, s katerimi razpolaga Sodi�če, ni mogoče presoditi, ali so imeli ukrepi na letali�ču Liège-Bierset, ki so predmet spora, obseg novogradnje.
The decisive factor is whether the works increased the airport’s capacity so much that the effects of the expansion on the environment are to be treated as equivalent to the construction of a new airport.
Odločilno je, ali so ukrepi tako zelo povečali zmogljivost letali�ča, da je mogoče vplive izgradnje na okolje enačiti s tistimi pri novogradnji.
If the contested works are not to be regarded as the construction of an airport within the meaning of point 7 of Annex I to the EIA directive, an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment may follow from Article 4(2) of the EIA directive in conjunction with point 12 of Annex II.
Če ukrepi, ki so predmet spora, ne �tejejo za gradnjo letali�ča v smislu Priloge I, točka 7, k Direktivi PVO, je mogoče obveznost glede presoje vplivov na okolje izpeljati iz člena 4(2) v povezavi s Prilogo II, točka 12, k Direktivi PVO.
This presupposes, first of all, that the works are to be regarded as modifications to a project under Annex I.
Pogoj za to pa je, da ukrepi �tejejo za spremembo projekta v skladu s Prilogo I.
Consideration must be given in particu- lar to the claim that as a result of these works alone the freight volume increased by a factor of 464 and night operation was made possible.
V tem smislu je treba zlasti preučiti trditve, da se je �ele na podlagi teh ukrepov povečal obseg tovornega prometa za fak -tor 464 in je postalo mogoče nočno obratovanje.
In particular, an extension of operating times can have significant effects on the environment.
Zlasti podalj�anje obratovalnega časa lahko pomembno vpliva na okolje.
However, Belgium, SAB and TNT stress the view that modifications to existing airports are not covered by the EIA directive.
Belgija, SAB in TNT pa s posebnim poudarkom zastopajo mnenje, da Direktiva PVO ne obsega sprememb pri obstoječih letali�čih.
The wording of point 7 of Annex I and point 12 of Annex II — modifications to the construction of an airport with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more — shows that only modifications in the course of the original construction process would be covered.
Besedilo Priloge I, točka 7, in Priloge II, točka 12 – sprememba pri gradnji letali�ča z vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več –, naj bi kazalo na to, da obsega le spremembo med prvotnim postopkom gradnje.
If modifications to the completed airport were also meant, point 7 of Annex I would refer not to the construction of an airport, but only to the airport, as in the case of the other types of project mentioned in Annex I, for example refineries, thermal power stations or waste-disposal installations.
Če bi bila mi�ljena tudi sprememba dokončno zgrajenega letali�ča, potem Priloga I, točka 7, ne bi navajala gradnje letali�ča, ampak le letali�če, kot naj bi se to zgodilo pri drugih vrstah projektov iz Priloge I: na primer rafinerije, termoelektrarne ali obrati za odpadke.
Works following the construction of an airport can also have significant effects on the environment.
Tudi ukrepi, ki sledijo gradnji letali�ča, imajo lahko pomembne vplive na okolje.
Nevertheless, this interpretation, which is not supported by the Commission, the Czech Republic and the individuals living near the airport, is not compelling.
Tak�na razlaga, s katero se ne strinjajo Komisija, Če�ka republika in stanovalci, ki živijo v bližini letali�ča, pa ni nujna.