natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the referring court asks whether the relevant administrative records and, specifically, the studies and reports contained therein, demonstrate that the Spanish authorities have, in practice, complied with the obligations arising from the EIA Dir -ective relating to the environmental assessment of the projects which are the subjectmatter of these proceedings, even if the project was not formally made subject to the prescribed environmental assessment procedure set out in the directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če končno spra�uje, ali so glede na to, kar izhaja iz upravnega spisa in predvsem iz vanj vključenih �tudij in poročil, �panske oblasti v zvezi s projekti, ki so predmet tega postopka, v praksi spo�tovale obveznosti iz Direktive o PVO glede presoje vplivov na okolje, čeprav za te projekte formalno ni bil uporabljen postopek presoje vplivov na okolje, ki ga določa navedena direktiva.
In the present case, the reference for a preliminary ruling does not contain any information on the studies and hearings conducted by the competent authorities.
V obravnavanem primeru predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ne vsebuje podatkov o tem, katere �tudije in obravnave so opravili pristojni organi.
Therefore, despite the relatively detailed submissions of the parties to the main proceedings on this point, it is not possible to discuss the extent to which the Spanish authorities actually complied with the requirements of the EIA Directive.
Zato kljub relativno podrobnim navedbam strank iz postopka v glavni stvari tu ni mogoče obravnavati vpra�anja, v kak�ni meri so �panske oblasti dejansko izpolnile obveznosti iz Direktive o PVO.
In this respect, it should be stated first of all — in accordance with the view taken by Italy and the Commission — that the Court cannot examine, having regard to the relevant records from the national administrative procedure and, specifically, the studies and reports contained therein, whether the environmental impact of the contested projects was sufficiently assessed.
V skladu s stali�čem Italije in Komisije je treba v zvezi s tem najprej ugotoviti, da Sodi�če ob upo�tevanju spisov nacionalnega upravnega postopka in zlasti vanj vključenih �tudij in poročil ne more presoditi, ali je bila opravljena ustrezna presoja vplivov obravnavanih projektov na okolje.
In preliminary ruling proceedings the Court may interpret the relevant provisions of Community law only on the basis of the information contained in the reference made by the national court.
V postopku predhodnega odločanja lahko Sodi�če na podlagi podatkov v predlogu predložitvenega sodi�ča le razlaga zadevne določbe prava Skupnosti.
It is for the national court to apply that interpretation to the main proceedings.
Uporaba te razlage v sporu o glavni stvari je prepu�čena predložitvenemu sodi�ču.
Taking these reservations into account, the Court is nevertheless required to give an answer to the fourth question.
Ob upo�tevanju teh omejitev mora Sodi�če vendarle odgovoriti na četrto vpra�anje.
25 — Case C-435/97 WWF and Others (cited in footnote 14, paragraph 31 et seq.).
25 – Sodba WWF in drugi (navedena v opombi 14, točka 31 in naslednja).
It must also be borne in mind that when ruling on the interpretation of Community
Poleg tega je treba upo�tevati, da lahko Sodi�če razlaga določbe prava Skupnosti le
— the public were able to comment (Article 6 and Article 7), and
– je javnost lahko o tem izrazila mnenje (člena 6 in 7) in
The Court has recognised in principle that a formal environmental impact assessment may be replaced by equivalent measures.
Sodi�če je načeloma priznalo, da se lahko postopek presoje vplivov na okolje nadomesti z enakovrednimi ukrepi.
27In order to be equivalent, the minimum requirements for an environmental impact assessment under Article 3 and Articles 5 to 10 of the EIA Directive must be met.
27Da bi bili ti enakovredni, morajo biti izpolnjene minimalne zahteve za presojo vplivov na okolje v skladu s členom 3 ter členi od 5 do 10 Direktive o PVO.
28 Measures which were taken only after development consent was given are irrelevant since environmental impact is to be assessed under Article 2(1) of the EIA Directive before consent is given.
28Ukrepov, ki se izvedejo �ele neposredno po izdaji soglasja za izvedbo, ni mogoče upo�tevati, ker je treba v skladu s členom 2(1) Direktive o PVO presojo vplivov na okolje opraviti pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo.
— the information on the environmental effects and the comments made by the public were taken into consideration (Article 8).
– so se upo�tevali podatki o vplivih na okolje in mnenja javnosti (člen 8).
If the national court concludes that the environmental impact of the contested road construction projects should have been assessed, it will therefore have to examine whether, before consent was given
Če se presodi, da bi morala biti glede obravnavanih projektov gradnje cest opravljena presoja vplivov na okolje, bo moralo nacionalno sodi�če preveriti predvsem, ali, preden je bilo izdano soglasje za izvedbo projektov,
Finally, it should be pointed out, on the basis of the submissions made by the municipality of Madrid, that any statements made by the Commission in connection with Treaty infringement proceedings cannot relieve the referring court of its responsibility to examine itself whether the requirements of the EIA Directive were complied with.
Končno je treba na podlagi navedb madridske mestne uprave opozoriti, da morebitne izjave Komisije v zvezi s postopkom zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti predložitvenega sodi�ča ne morejo oprostiti dolžnosti, da samo presodi, ali so bile zahteve Direktive o PVO spo�tovane.
— the environmental effects were sufficiently investigated and described (Article 3 and Article 5),
– so bili vplivi na okolje dovolj preučeni in prikazani (člena 3 in 5),
— those findings were made available to the public (Article 6 and Article 7),
– so bile te ugotovitve na razpolago javnosti (člena 6 in 7),
27 — Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany (Großkrotzenburg) (cited in footnote 16, paragraph 41 et seq.) and Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 16, paragraph 56).
27 – Glej sodbi Großkrotzenburg (navedena v opombi 16, točka 41 in naslednje) in Komisija proti Španiji (navedena v opombi 16, točka 56).
28 — With regard to these requirements, see Case C-287/98 Linster (cited in footnote 10, paragraph 52 et seq.).
28 – V zvezi s temi zahtevami glej sodbo Linster (navedena v opombi 10, točka 52 in naslednje).
The answer to the fourth question must therefore be that a formal environmental impact assessment may be replaced by equivalent measures if they meet the minimum requirements laid down in Article 3 and Articles 5 to 10 of the EIA Directive.
Na četrto vpra�anje je zato odgovoriti, da se lahko presoja vplivov na okolje nadomesti z enakovrednimi ukrepi, če ti izpolnjujejo minimalne zahteve iz člena 3 in členov od 5 do 10 Direktive o PVO.
I therefore suggest that the Court answers the questions referred for a preliminary ruling as follows:
Sodi�ču zato predlagam, naj na predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe odgovori:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 25. julija 2008 *
JUDGMENT OF 25. 7.
SODBA Z DNE 25. 7.
2008 — CASE C-142/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-142/07 generalna pravobranilka: J. Kokott, sodna tajnica: M.
— the Commission of the European Communities, by A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 30 April 2008,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti A. Alcover San Pedro in J.-B. Laignelot, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 30. aprila 2008
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA gives the following
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Dir -ective 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje (UL L 175, str.
40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p.
40), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997 (UL L 73, str.
5) (‘the amended directive’).
5, v nadaljevanju: spremenjena direktiva).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (‘CODA’) and the Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Municipality of Madrid) concerning an administrative act approving various projects forming part of the refurbishment and improvement of virtually the whole of the Madrid urban ring road.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med združenjem Ecologistas en Acción-CODA (v nadaljevanju: CODA) in Ayuntamiento de Madrid (mestna občina Madrid) glede upravnega akta, s katerim so bili odobreni različni projekti v okviru �iritve in obnove skoraj celotne madridske obvoznice.
Directive 85/337 was adopted with the aim of harmonising the principles for the assessment of the environmental effects of certain private and public projects, the main obligations of the developers and the content of the assessment of those effects.
Direktiva 85/337 je bila sprejeta z namenom uskladitve načel na področju presoje vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, glavnih obveznosti nosilcev projektov in vsebine presoje teh vplivov.
Annex I to the directive sets out the projects subject to such an assessment, while
V njeni prilogi I so navedeni projekti, za katere se mora izvesti tak�na presoja, medtem ko so v njeni prilogi II navedeni tisti,
Annex II sets out the projects that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the directive, the Member States could make subject to that assessment where they considered that the characteristics of the projects concerned so required.
2008 – ZADEVA C-142/07 za katere lahko države članice v skladu s členom 4(2) te direktive določijo, da se presodijo, če menijo, da se glede na njihove značilnosti to zahteva.
The amendments that Directive 97/11 made to Directive 85/337 principally concern making projects likely to have effects on the environment subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment of those effects, and the harmonisation of the criteria that the Member States must use in order to determine whether or not a project falling into one of the categories covered by Annex II must be made subject to such an assessment.
Spremembe Direktive 85/337, uvedene z Direktivo 97/11, se nana�ajo predvsem na to, da so projekti, ki bodo verjetno vplivali na okolje, predmet zahteve za izdajo soglasja za izvedbo in presoje njihovih vplivov, in na uskladitev meril, ki jih morajo države članice uporabiti pri določanju, ali je glede projekta iz ene od skupin iz priloge II treba izvesti tako presojo.
Those criteria are henceforth listed in Annex III to the amended directive.
Ta merila so od tedaj na�teta v prilogi III k spremenjeni direktivi.
Article 1(2) of the amended directive contains the following definitions:
Člen 1(2) spremenjene direktive vsebuje te opredelitve:
‘“project” means:
„‚projekt‘ pomeni:
— other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape …
– druge posege v naravno okolje in krajino, […];
Article 2(1) of the amended directive provides:
V členu 2(1) spremenjene direktive je določeno:
‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. …’
„Države članice sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da so pred izdajo soglasja projekti, ki bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, predmet zahteve za izdajo soglasja za izvedbo in presojo njihovih vplivov. […]“
Article 3 of the amended directive provides:
V členu 3 spremenjene direktive je določeno:
‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Art -icles 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:
— human beings, fauna and flora;
– ljudi, živalstvo in rastlinstvo;
Under Article 4(1) of the amended directive, projects listed in Annex I thereto are to be made subject to an assessment, subject to the exceptional cases exempted under Article 2(3) of that directive.
V skladu z besedilom člena 4(1) spremenjene direktive se presojajo projekti, ki so na�teti v prilogi I k tej direktivi, ob upo�tevanju, da so na podlagi člena 2(3) te direktive v izjemnih primerih določeni projekti izvzeti.
2008 — CASE C-142/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-142/07
In accordance with Article 4(2) and (3) of the amended directive, each Member State is to determine, through a case-by-case examination or on the basis of thresholds or criteria which it sets, by taking account of the selection criteria set out in Annex III to the directive, whether the projects referred to in Annex II are to be made subject to an assessment.
V skladu s členom 4(2) in (3) spremenjene direktive vsaka država članica s preverjanjem za vsak primer posebej ali s pragovi ali merili, ki jih postavi, ob upo�tevanju izbirnih meril iz priloge III k tej direktivi odloči, ali se bodo projekti iz priloge II k navedeni direktivi presojali.
Point 7 of Annex I to the amended directive mentions, under heading (b), projects for ‘[c]onstruction of motorways and express roads’ and, under heading (c), projects for ‘construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road would be 10 km or more in a continuous length’.
V prilogi I k spremenjeni direktivi so v točki 7 pod (b) navedeni projekti „[g]radnj[e] avtocest in hitrih cest“ in pod (c) projekti „[g]radnj[e] nove ceste s �tirimi ali več pasovi ali nova razvrstitev pasov na obstoječi cesti in/ali �iritev obstoječe ceste z dvema pasovoma ali manj, da bo imela �tiri ali več pasov, z dolžino take nove ceste ali dela ceste z novo razvrstitvijo pasov in/ali raz�irjenega dela ceste 10 km ali več neprekinjenega poteka.“
Point 7(b) refers, for the definition of ‘express roads’, to that in the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries of 15 November 1975 (‘the agreement’).
V navedeni točki 7(b) je pojem „hitra cesta“ opredeljen s sklicevanjem na opredelitev iz Evropskega sporazuma o glavnih mednarodnih prometnih žilah z dne 15. novembra 1975 (v nadaljevanju: sporazum).
In point 10 of Annex II to the amended directive, entitled ‘Infrastructure projects’, subheading (b) mentions ‘[u]rban development projects’ and subheading (e) projects for ‘[c]onstruction of roads … (projects not included in Annex I)’.
V prilogi II k spremenjeni direktivi so v točki 10, naslovljeni „Infrastrukturni projekti“, pod (b) navedeni „[u]rbanistični projekti“ in pod (e) „[g]radnja cest […] (projekti, ki niso vključeni v prilogo I)“.
The first indent of point 13 of Annex II covers ‘[a]ny 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 navedeni prilogi II se točka 13, prva alinea, nana�a na „[v]sak[o] sprememb[o] 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“.
The agreement
Sporazum
The agreement was ratified by all the Member States except seven.
Sporazum so ratificirale vse države članice razen sedmih. Med slednjimi je Kraljevina Španija.
Under Title II thereof, entitled ‘Classification of International Roads’, Annex II to the agreement contains inter alia the following definitions:
Priloga II, naslov II „[Kategorizacija mednarodnih cest]“, k sporazumu vsebuje te opredelitve:
‘II.2 Motorways
„II.2 Avtoceste
(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;
(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) Does not cross at level with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath; and
(ii) se v nivoju ne križa z drugo cesto, železni�ko ali tramvajsko progo ali pe�potjo;
(iii) Is specially sign-posted as a motorway.
(iii) je posebej označena kot avtocesta.
An express road is a road reserved for motor traffic accessible only from interchanges or controlled junctions and on which, in particular, stopping and parking are prohibited on the running carriageway(s).’
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.“
By decision of 17 January 2005, the Concejala del Área de Gobierno de Urbanismo, Vivienda e Infraestructuras del Ayuntamiento de Madrid (Councillor for Planning, Housing and Infrastructure of the Municipality of Madrid) approved various projects for refurbishment and improvement of the Madrid urban ring road, identified under number M-30.
Concejala del Área de Gobierno de Urbanisme, Vivienda e Infraestructuras del Ayuntamiento de Madrid (svetnik mestne občine Madrid, pristojen za urbanizem, stanovanjsko problematiko in infrastrukturo) je z odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2005 odobril različne projekte prenove in izbolj�anja madridske mestne obvoznice z oznako M-30.
Those projects concern specifically the re-routing underground, first, of the M-30 between Marquès de Monistrol and Puente de Segovia, between Puente de Segovia and Puente de San Isidro, between Puente de San Isidro and Puente de Praga and between Puente de Praga and Nudo Sur and, second, of the Avenida de Portugal as far as the San Vicente roundabout.
Ti projekti se konkretno nana�ajo na vkop trase ceste pod povr�je, in sicer na eni strani ceste M-30 med Marquès de Monistrol in Puente de Segovia, med Puente de Segovia in Puente de San Isidro, med Puente de San Isidro in Puente de Praga ter med Puente de Praga in Nudo Sur ter na drugi strani ceste Avenida de Portugal do kroži�ča San Vicente.
According to CODA’s observations, which are not contradicted in that respect, the M-30 is a road intended exclusively for motor traffic, without traffic lights, pavements or verges for pedestrians and without bus stops or taxi ranks.
Glede na stali�ča združenja CODA, ki se jim glede tega ni ugovarjalo, je M-30 cesta, namenjena izključno prometu motornih vozil, brez semaforjev, pločnika ali pasu za pe�ce ter brez avtobusnih postaj in postajali�č za taksije.
The projects are part of a complex civil engineering scheme which consists in improving and refurbishing virtually the whole of the Madrid urban ring road.
Ti projekti spadajo v okvir zapletenega projekta s področja gradbeni�tva o izbolj�anju in prenovi skoraj celotne madridske obvoznice.
That scheme, also called ‘Madrid calle 30’, aims, according to the observations of the Ayuntamiento de Madrid, to reduce congestion on the roads and the risk of accidents, and not to increase the traffic capacity on that road.
Namen tega projekta, ki se imenuje tudi „Madrid calle 30“, je glede na stali�ča Ayuntamiento de Madrid zmanj�anje gneče na cestah ter tveganja za nesreče in ne povečanje prometne zmogljivosti te ceste.
After its administrative appeal against the abovementioned decision of 17 January 2005 had been rejected by decision of 23 May 2005, CODA brought an action before the referring court for annulment of the latter decision.
Potem ko je bila pritožba zoper zgoraj navedeno odločbo z dne 17. januarja 2005 z odločbo z dne 23. maja 2005 zavrnjena, je združenje CODA s tožbo na razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe pri predložitvenem sodi�ču začelo upravni spor.
Like the administrative appeal, the action for annulment is based, inter alia, on a plea alleging infringement of the national rules on environmental impact assessment applicable to such projects and which derive in part from the amended directive.
Kot v primeru pritožbe ta ničnostna tožba med drugim temelji na tožbenem razlogu, da naj bi bila kr�ena nacionalna ureditev na področju presoje vplivov na okolje, ki velja za navedene projekte in ki deloma izhaja iz spremenjene direktive.
It is apparent from the order for reference that the Madrid City Council has split the larger ‘Madrid calle 30’ project into 15 independent sub-projects, treated separately, only one of which concerns alteration or rehabilitation work on any existing road on a section exceeding five kilometres, the threshold at which the regional rules applicable make a project subject to an environmental impact assessment, while the larger project taken as a whole substantially exceeds that threshold.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je madridski mestni svet zgoraj navedeni krovni projekt „Madrid calle 30“ razdelil na petnajst samostojnih podprojektov, ki jih je obravnaval posamezno in od katerih se le eden nana�a na spremembo ali obnovo trase obstoječe ceste, dalj�e od petih kilometrov, kar je prag, določen z veljavno regionalno ureditvijo za presojo vplivov projekta na okolje, medtem ko zadevni krovni projekt, obravnavan kot celota, znatno presega ta prag.
It is also clear from the referring court’s explanations that, according to certain estimates, the execution of the overall scheme will lead to an increase in traffic of nearly 25% and will involve different kinds of works in the urban area surrounding the M-30.
Iz pojasnil predložitvenega sodi�ča izhaja, da naj bi po nekaterih predvidevanjih izvedba krovnega projekta povzročila povečanje prometa za skoraj 25 % in nujnost različnih del na mestnem območju okoli M-30.
Having regard to the scale and the implications of the scheme, the referring court wonders whether, in accordance with the amended directive, it should not be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Ob upo�tevanju razsežnosti in posledic tega projekta se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali ne bi bilo treba v skladu s spremenjeno direktivo obvezno presoditi njegovih vplivov na okolje.
Before the referring court, the Ayuntamiento de Madrid, while asserting that it had never had the intention of preventing the application of the amended directive, pointed out that the dispute arose from an interpretation common to all the national authorities which have reviewed the legality of the relevant projects.
Ayuntamiento de Madrid je pri predložitvenem sodi�ču kljub zatrjevanju, da ni nikoli imel namena nasprotovati uporabi spremenjene direktive, opozoril, da je spor posledica razlage, ki so jo uporabili vsi nacionalni organi, ki so preverili zakonitost zadevnih projektov.
It also submitted that to extend, in this case, the judgment in Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain of 16 March 2006 to situations other than that at issue in the case which gave rise to that judgment would require detailed reasoning by the Court of Justice.
Poleg tega je poudaril, da bi bila za raz�iritev področja uporabe sodne prakse, ki izhaja iz sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 16. marca 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji (C-332/04, neobjavljena v ZOdl.), �e na druge primere poleg tistega, ki je bil sporen v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena ta sodba, nujna podrobna obrazložitev Sodi�ča.