natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment in order to determine, initially, whether the person concerned falls within Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, a single factor characterising the person concerned cannot, in principle, have a conclusive effect of itself.
Glede na to, da mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ opraviti celostno presojo, da bi ugotovil, ali člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa velja za zadevno osebo, posamezna okoli�čina, ki opredeljuje to osebo, sama po sebi načeloma ne more imeti odločilnega vpliva.
With regard to circumstances such as those related by the national court in its first question, under points (a) to (d), the fact that, as explained under point (a), the requested person’s stay in the executing Member State was not uninterrupted and the fact that, as described under point (b), his stay in that State does not comply with the national legislation on residence of foreign nationals, while not constituting factors which lead by themselves to the conclusion that he is not ‘staying’ in that Member State within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the Framework Decision, can however be of relevance to the executing judicial authority when it is called upon to assess whether the person concerned is covered by that provision.
V takem primeru, kot ga v prvem vpra�anju, od (a) do (d), navaja predložitveno sodi�če, je treba ugotoviti, da okoli�čina iz točke (a), da se zahtevana oseba ni neprekinjeno zadrževala v izvr�itveni državi članici, ter dejstvo iz točke (b), da se tam ne zadržuje v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo v zvezi z vstopom in bivanjem tujcev, sicer nista dejavnika, ki bi sama po sebi privedla do sklepa, da se ta oseba ne „nahaja“ v tej državi članici v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa, vendar lahko vplivata na presojo izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa, ali se za zadevno osebo navedena določba uporablja.
With regard to the fact that, as explained in point (c) of the first question, according to which that person systematically commits crimes in the executing Member State and the fact that, as described in point (d) of that question, he is in detention there serving a custodial sentence, it must be held that they are not relevant factors for the executing judicial authority when it initially has to ascertain whether the person concerned is ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
V zvezi z okoli�čino iz točke (c) prvega vpra�anja, da ta oseba v izvr�itveni državi članici sistematično izvr�uje kazniva dejanja, in dejstvom iz točke (d), da je v tej državi v zaporu, je treba ugotoviti, da gre za dejavnika, ki ju izvr�itveni pravosodni organ ne more upo�tevati pri ugotavljanju, ali se zadevna oseba tam „nahaja“ v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa.
By contrast, such factors may, supposing that the person concerned is ‘staying’ in the executing Member State, be of some relevance for the assessment which the executing judicial authority is then called upon to carry out in order to decide whether there are grounds for not implementing a European arrest warrant.
Taki dejavniki pa imajo lahko ob domnevi, da se zadevna oseba „nahaja“ v izvr�itveni državi članici, določen vpliv v okviru morebitne nadaljnje presoje, ki jo mora opraviti navedeni organ, da bi ugotovil, ali je upravičeno zavrniti izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje.
It follows that, without being conclusive, two of the four circumstances related by the national courts in its first question, under points (a) and (b), can be of relevance for the executing judicial authority when it has to ascertain whether the situation of the person concerned falls within Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Iz tega izhaja, da dve od �tirih okoli�čin, ki jih predložitveno sodi�če navaja v prvem vpra�anju, in sicer tisti iz točk (a) in (b), lahko, sicer ne odločilno, vplivata na ugotavljanje izvr�itvenega pravosodnega organa, ali se za položaj zadevne osebe uporablja člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa.
In that regard, it must be held that, in the light of various factors referred to by the national court as characterising the situation of a person such as Mr Kozłowski, in particular the length, nature and conditions of his stay, the absence of family ties and his very weak economic connections with the executing Member State, such a person cannot be regarded as covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da iz več dejavnikov, za katere je predložitveno sodi�če navedlo, da opredeljujejo položaj osebe v takem primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, zlasti iz trajanja, narave in razmer, v katerih se zadržuje v izvr�itveni državi članici, ter iz odsotnosti družinskih vezi in �ibkih ekonomskih vezi, ki jih ima z njo, izhaja, da take osebe ni mogoče obravnavati, kot da je zajeta s pojmom „se nahaja“ v smislu člena 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa.
Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question must be that Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision is to be interpreted as meaning that:
Glede na vse navedeno je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da:
— a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence;
– zahtevana oseba „prebiva“ v izvr�itveni državi članici, če ima v njej dejansko prebivali�če, „nahaja“ pa se v njej, če se v tej državi članici že nekaj časa neprekinjeno zadržuje in je zato z njo vzpostavila podobne vezi, kot izhajajo iz prebivali�ča;
— in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.
– mora izvr�itveni pravosodni organ za ugotovitev, ali med zahtevano osebo in izvr�itveno državo članico obstajajo vezi, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, da je zajeta s pojmom „se nahaja“ v smislu navedenega člena 4, točka 6, opraviti celostno presojo več objektivnih dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo položaj te osebe, med drugim zlasti trajanja, narave in pogojev, v katerih se zahtevana oseba zadržuje v izvr�itveni državi članici, ter družinskih in ekonomskih vezi, ki jih ima z njo.
According to the national court, it must authorise the execution of the Euorpean arrest warrant issued against Mr Kozłowski if it finds that he does not have his ‘habitual residence’, within the meaning of Article 83b(2)(b) of the IRG, in Germany.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da bo moralo odobriti izvr�itev evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdanega zoper S. Kozłowskega, če bo ugotovilo, da v Nemčiji nima „običajnega prebivali�ča“ v smislu člena 83b(2)(b) IRG.
Having regard to paragraphs 47 and 53 of this judgment and to the reply given by the Court to the first question, it is no longer necessary in the present case to reply to the second question referred, since the requested person in the main proceedings is not covered by Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision.
Glede na točki 47 in 53 te sodbe in odgovor, ki ga je Sodi�če podalo na prvo vpra�anje, v tem primeru ni treba odgovoriti na drugo vpra�anje, saj se za zahtevano osebo v postopku v glavni stvari člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa ne uporablja.
Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, is to be interpreted to the effect that:
Člen 4, točka 6, Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami je treba razlagati tako, da:
— a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence;
– zahtevana oseba „prebiva“ v izvršitveni državi članici, če ima v njej dejansko prebivališče, „nahaja“ pa se v njej, če se v tej državi članici že nekaj časa neprekinjeno zadržuje in je zato z njo vzpostavila podobne vezi, kot izhajajo iz prebivališča;
— in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.
– mora izvršitveni pravosodni organ za ugotovitev, ali med zahtevano osebo in izvršitveno državo članico obstajajo vezi, na podlagi katerih je mogoče ugotoviti, da je zajeta s pojmom „se nahaja“ v smislu navedenega člena 4, točka 6, opraviti celostno presojo več objektivnih dejavnikov, ki opredeljujejo položaj te osebe, med drugim zlasti trajanja, narave in razmer, v katerih se zahtevana oseba zadržuje v izvršitveni državi članici, ter družinskih in ekonomskih vezi, ki jih ima z njo.
Case C-142/07
Zadeva C-142/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 22 de Madrid)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 22 de Madrid)
(Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Refurbishment and improvement works on urban roads — Whether subject to assessment)
„Direktivi 85/337/EGS in 97/11/ES – Presoja vplivov projektov na okolje – Prenova in izbolj�anje mestnih cest – Obveznost presoje vplivov na okolje“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 25 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kokott, predstavljeni 30. aprila 2008 I - 6100Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 25. julija 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 6117
(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Arts 2(1) and 4(2))
Okolje – Presoja vplivov nekaterih projektov na okolje – Direktiva 85/337 (Direktiva Sveta 85/337, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, člena 2(1) in 4(2))
(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Art. 2(1), and Annexes I, point 7(b) and (c), and II, points 10(e) and 13, first indent)
(Direktiva Sveta 85/337, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, člen 2(1) in prilogi I, točka 7(b) in (c), ter II, točki 10(e) in 13, prva alinea)
SUMMARY — CASE C-142/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-142/07
to result from the use and exploitation of the end product of those works.
izrabljanjem objektov, ki nastanejo s temi deli.
If, like Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the same provision of that directive, as amended by Dir -ective 97/11, confers on Member States a measure of discretion in order to determine whether a project falling in the categories listed in Annex II thereto must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, the limits of that discretion are to be found in the obligation set out in Article 2(1) of that directive that projects likely, by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location, to have significant effects on the environment are to be subject to an impact assessment.
Čeprav imajo, kot na podlagi člena 4(2) Direktive 85/337 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, države članice na podlagi iste določbe te direktive, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, diskrecijsko pravico, da določijo, ali je treba glede projekta iz ene od skupin, na�tetih v prilogi II k zadnjenavedeni direktivi, izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, je ta diskrecijska pravica omejena z obveznostjo, določeno v členu 2(1) navedene direktive, da se presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
In applying their discretion, the Member States must take account of each of those criteria in order to determine whether projects are likely to have an effect on the environment.
Pri izvajanju svoje diskrecijske pravice morajo države članice upo�tevati vsako od teh meril, da bi odločile, ali bodo imeli projekti pomemben vpliv na okolje.
Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11 must be interpreted as meaning that it provides for environmental impact assessment of refurbishment and improvement projects for urban roads, either where they are projects covered by point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I to the directive, or where they are projects covered by point 10(e) of Annex II or the first indent of point 13 thereof, which are likely, by virtue of their nature, size or location and, if appropriate, having regard to their interaction with other projects, to have significant effects on the environment.
Direktivo 85/337 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, je treba razlagati tako, da je treba glede projektov prenove in izbolj�anja mestnih cest izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, če gre za projekte iz priloge I, točka 7(b) ali (c), k tej direktivi ali če gre za projekte iz priloge II, točki 10(e) in 13, prva alinea, k navedeni direktivi, ki bodo zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije in – če je to potrebno – ob upo�tevanju njihovega sovplivanja z drugimi projekti verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
In that regard, in the same way as Directive 85/337, the amended direct- ive adopts an overall assessment of the effects of projects or the alteration thereof on the environment.
V zvezi s tem je cilj spremenjene direktive, enako kot Direktive 85/337, celostna presoja vplivov, ki jih imajo projekti ali njihove spremembe na okolje.
It would be simplistic and contrary to that approach to take account, when assessing the environmental impact of a project or of its modification, only of the direct effects of the works envisaged themselves, and not of the environmental impact liable
Bilo bi poenostavljeno in v nasprotju s tem pristopom, če bi se v okviru presoje vplivov projekta ali njegove spremembe na okolje upo�tevali zgolj neposredni vplivi načrtovanih del, ne pa vplivi na okolje, ki bi lahko nastali z uporabo in
Since the scope of Directive 85/337 and that of the amended directive is very wide, it would, therefore, be contrary to the very purpose of the amended dir -ective to allow any urban road project to fall outside its scope solely on the ground that the directive does not expressly mention among the projects listed in Annexes I and II those concerning that kind of road.
Ker sta namreč področji uporabe Direktive 85/337 in spremenjene direktive zelo �iroki, bi bilo torej v nasprotju z namenom spremenjene direktive, če se ta direktiva za projekte o mestnih cestah ne bi uporabljala le zato, ker v njej projekti o tej vrsti cest niso izrecno navedeni med projekti, na�tetimi v njenih prilogah I in II.
Furthermore, the concepts in those annexes are Community law concepts which must be interpreted
Poleg tega so pojmi iz navedenih prilog pojmi prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba razlagati avtonomno, in
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA independently and it is conceivable that the types of road which are mentioned therein are sited both in and outside built-up areas.
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA ni izključeno, da vrste cest, navedene v teh določbah, potekajo v mestu in zunaj njega.
Lastly, the purpose of the amended directive cannot be circumvented by the splitting of projects and the failure to take account of the cumulative effect of several projects must not mean in practice that they all escape the obligation to carry out an assessment when, taken together, they are likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the amended directive.
Nazadnje se cilja navedene direktive ne sme zaobiti z razdrobitvijo projekta in zaradi neupo�tevanja kumulativnih vplivov več projektov se projekti ne smejo v celoti izogniti obveznosti presoje, če bi upo�tevani skupaj lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje v smislu člena 2(1) iste direktive.
(see paras 28, 29, 36, 44, 46, operative part)
(Glej točke 28, 29, 36, 44 in 46 ter izrek.)
In addition, the fact that point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I to that directive refers to projects for the ‘construction’ of the types of road mentioned does not mean that projects for refurbishment and improvement of an existing road are excluded from the scope of the amended directive.
Prav tako to, da se priloga I, točka 7(b) in (c), k navedeni direktivi nana�a na projekte „gradnje“ vrste cest, ki so navedene, ne pomeni, da se za projekte, ki se nana�ajo na prenovo in izbolj�anje obstoječe ceste, spremenjena direktiva ne uporablja.
A project for refurbishment of a road which would be equivalent, by its size and the manner in which it is carried out, to construction may be regarded as a construction project for the purposes of that annex.
Projekt prenove ceste, ki bi bil glede na svojo razsežnost in način izvedbe enakovreden gradnji, se namreč lahko obravnava kot projekt gradnje v smislu navedene priloge.
Article 2(1) defines the aim of the EIA Directive:
V členu 2(1) je določen namen Direktive o PVO:
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, 2as amended by Council Dir -ective 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 3(‘the EIA Directive’).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na Direktivo Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje 2, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997 3 (v nadaljevanju: Direktiva o PVO).
It relates to five projects to widen and improve a main road in Madrid, which form part of the ‘Madrid calle 30’ project.
Gre za pet projektov �iritve in obnove glavne prometnice v Madridu, ki so del projekta „Madrid calle 30“.
Urban road construction projects do not fall within the scope of the Spanish rules implementing the EIA Direct- ive.
Projekti gradnje mestnih cest ne spadajo na področje uporabe �panskih predpisov, s katerimi je bila prenesena Direktiva o PVO.
The question therefore arises whether the EIA Directive covers such projects.
Zato se postavlja vpra�anje, ali Direktiva o PVO obsega tovrstne projekte.
‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
„Presoja vplivov na okolje na primeren način glede na vsak posamezni primer in skladno s členi 4 do 11 opredeli, opi�e in presodi neposredne in posredne vplive projekta na naslednje dejavnike: a) preverjanjem za vsak primer posebej,
— soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;
– ljudi, živalstvo in rastlinstvo, ali
(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State,
– tla, vodo, zrak, podnebje in krajino, b) pragovi ali merili, ki jih postavi država članica,
— material assets and the cultural heritage; whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
– lastnino in kulturno materialno dedi�čino, odločijo, ali se bo projekt presojal skladno s členi 5 do 10.
Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b).’
Države članice se lahko odločijo za uporabo obeh postopkov, navedenih v (a) in (b).“
Article 4(1) and (2) define which projects are to be assessed:
Člen 4(1) in (2) določa, katere projekte se presoja:
Subject to Article 2(3), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
Priloga I, točka (7)(b), vsebuje nekatere projekte gradnje cest, in sicer „Gradnj[e] avtocest in hitrih cest (2)“.
OPINION OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-142/07
KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-142/07 glavnih z dne
B — The European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975
B – Evropski sporazum mednarodnih prometnih 15. novembra 1975
The Agreement has been ratified by 20 Member States, but not by Spain, Estonia, Ireland, Malta, Austria, the United Kingdom or Cyprus.
Sporazum je ratificiralo dvajset držav članic, niso pa ga ratificirale Španija, Estonija, Irska, Malta, Avstrija, Združeno kraljestvo in Ciper.
Annex II contains the conditions to which the main international traffic arteries should conform.
Priloga II vsebuje pogoje, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati glavne mednarodne prometne žile.
Point (10)(e) of Annex II includes a mention of roads:
V Prilogi II, točka 10(e), so med drugim omenjene ceste:
Section I.1 defines the substantive scope of those conditions:
V točki I.1 je določeno področje uporabe ratione materiae teh pogojev:
‘Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I).’
„Gradnja cest, pristani�č in luk, vključno z ribi�kimi pristani�či (projekti, ki niso vključeni v Prilogo I).“
Changes to projects are covered by the first indent of point 13 of Annex II:
Spremembe projektov so zajete v Prilogi II, točka 13, prva alinea:
They do not apply in built-up areas. The latter shall be by-passed if they constitute a hindrance or a danger.’
„Vsaka sprememba ali raz�iritev projektov, na�tetih v Prilogi I in Prilogi II, ki so že dovoljeni, izvedeni ali v izvedbi in lahko imajo pomembne �kodljive vplive na okolje.“
‘Any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed, which may have significant adverse effects on the environment’.
„V naslednjih določbah so navedene osnovne karakteristike, ki jih je treba spo�tovati pri graditvi ali rekonstrukciji mednarodnih prometnih žil (v nadaljnjem besedilu: ‚mednarodne ceste‘), temeljijo pa na sodobnih zasnovah o tehniki gradnje cest.
In Annex II, sections II.2 and II.3 the terms ‘motorway’ and ‘express road’ are defined:
V Prilogi II, točki II.2 in II.3, sta opredeljena pojma avtocesta in hitra cesta:
An express road is a road reserved for motor traffic accessible only from interchanges or controlled junctions and on which, in par -ticular, stopping and parking are prohibited on the running carriageway(s).’ 4
Ceste, določene za avtomobilski promet, na katere je možen uvoz samo prek deteljic ali križi�č, na katerih je promet reguliran in se je prepovedano zaustaviti ali stati.“
“Motorway” means a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, and which:
Izraz ‚avtocesta‘ označuje cesto, ki je projektirana in zgrajena izključno za promet motornih vozil in se ne uporablja za druge namene in katera:
(i) Is provided, except at special points or temporarily, with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each other by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means;
III – Dejansko stanje, postopek in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje i) ima, razen na posebnih mestih ali začasno, ločene vozne pasove za promet v dveh nasprotnih smereh, ki so med seboj fizično ločeni z ločilnim pasom, ki ni namenjen prometu, ali izjemoma z drugimi sredstvi; ii) se v nivoju ne križa z drugo cesto, železni�ko ali tramvajsko progo ali pe�potjo;