natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The referring court also set out the observations submitted by the Communidad autónoma de Madrid (Autonomous Community of Madrid), according to which there is confusion between preliminary ruling proceedings and actions for failure to fulfil obligations, because the hearing mainly concerned possible infringements of Community law.
Predložitveno sodi�če prav tako poudarja stali�ča, ki jih je predložila Communidad autónoma de Madrid (madridska avtonomna skupnost) in v skladu s katerimi naj bi nastala zmeda med postopkom predhodnega odločanja in tožbo zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, saj naj bi se razprava nana�ala predvsem na morebitne kr�itve prava Skupnosti.
In those circumstances the national court decided to stay its proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je nacionalno sodi�če prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
The first three questions
Prva tri vprašanja
By the first three questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks essentially whether the amended directive must be interpreted as meaning that projects for the refurbishment and improvement of virtually the whole of an urban ring road must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment taking account, inter alia, of the nature of those projects, the type of road in question, the characteristics and size of the projects, their effect on densely populated areas or landscapes having a historical, cultural or archaeological significance, and the fact that they are the result of the splitting up of a larger project concerning the execution of a series of similar works on the same road.
S prvimi tremi vpra�anji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba spremenjeno direktivo razlagati tako, da je treba glede projektov prenove in izbolj�anja skoraj celotne mestne obvoznice izvesti presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje ob upo�tevanju, med drugim, vrste teh projektov, vrste ceste, značilnosti in razsežnosti navedenih projektov ter njihovih vplivov na gosto poseljena območja ali na območja zgodovinskega, kulturnega ali arheolo�kega pomena ter dejstva, da so ti projekti nastali z razdelitvijo krovnega projekta o izvedbi več podobnih del na isti cesti.
Under Article 4(1) of the amended directive, projects listed in Annex I thereto are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Na podlagi člena 4(1) spremenjene direktive je treba glede projektov, na�tetih v njeni prilogi I, izvesti presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje.
According to Article 4(2), the Member States are to determine, by taking account of the conditions set out in that provision, which projects listed in Annex II to the directive must be made subject to such an assessment.
V skladu z odstavkom 2 istega člena pa določijo države članice ob upo�tevanju pogojev iz te določbe, za katere projekte, ki so na�teti v prilogi II k navedeni direktivi, je treba izvesti tako presojo.
According to the Ayuntamiento de Madrid, the ring road concerned in the main proceedings is an urban road.
Po mnenju Ayuntamiento de Madrid je obvoznica, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, mestna cesta.
The amended directive does not refer to that type of road in Annexes I and II, which mention only motorways, express roads and roads.
Prilogi I in II k spremenjeni direktivi pa naj se ne bi nana�ali na to vrsto ceste, saj so v njiju navedene le avtoceste, hitre ceste in ceste.
Furthermore, those terms are not defined, except, with respect to the notion of express road, by reference to the definition given by the agreement.
Ti pojmi naj poleg tega ne bi bili opredeljeni, z izjemo pojma hitra cesta, ki je opredeljen s sklicevanjem na opredelitev iz sporazuma.
According to the defendant in the main proceedings, in the absence of clarification as to those terms, the Spanish law transposing the amended directive repeated its exact words.
Ker ti pojmi niso natančno opredeljeni, je bilo po mnenju tožene stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari v �panske predpise, s katerimi je bila prenesena spremenjena direktiva, povzeto isto besedilo teh pojmov.
Since urban roads are not mentioned there, it was entitled to take the view that projects for the alteration of such a road were not covered by the amended directive and, consequently, did not have to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Ker med njimi ni mestne ceste, je mestna občina menila, da se za projekte o spremembi take ceste spremenjena direktiva ne uporablja in torej glede njih ni treba izvesti presoje vplivov na okolje.
It would, therefore, be contrary to the very purpose of the amended directive 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.
I-1197, točka 32). Bilo bi torej v nasprotju z namenom spre -menjene direktive, če se ta direktiva za projekte o mestnih cestah ne bi uporabljala le zato, ker v njej projekti o tej vrsti ceste niso izrecno navedeni med projekti, na�tetimi v njenih prilogah I in II.
Point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I to the amended directive mentions among the projects which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment ‘motorways’, ‘express roads’ and ‘[c]onstruction 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’.
Treba je poudariti, da so v prilogi I, točka 7(b) in (c), k spremenjeni direktivi med projekti, glede katerih je treba izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, na�tete „avtocest[e]“, „hitr[e] cest[e]“ in „[g]radnja 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“.
As to Annex II, it mentions in point 10(e) and the first indent of point 13 respectively ‘[c]onstruction of roads’ and ‘[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’ among the projects for which the Member States may require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in accordance with Article 4(2) of that directive.
Med projekti, glede katerih lahko države članice v skladu s členom 4(2) te direktive določijo, da se izvede presoja vplivov na okolje, sta v prilogi II, točki 10(e) in 13, prva alinea, navedeni „[g]radnja cest“ in „[v]saka 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“.
In that regard it must be stated, first, as the Commission of the European Communities rightly submits, that the concepts in those annexes are Community law concepts which must be interpreted independently and, second, that it is conceivable that the types of road which are mentioned therein are sited both in and outside built-up areas.
V zvezi s tem je treba na eni strani pojasniti, kot pravilno poudarja Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, da so pojmi iz navedenih prilog pojmi prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba razlagati avtonomno, na drugi strani pa je treba poudariti, da ni izključeno, da vrste cest, navedene v teh določbah, potekajo v mestu in zunaj njega.
The amended directive does not define the concepts mentioned above with the exception of ‘express roads’, for which it refers to the agreement thereby including the definition of ‘express road’ contained therein.
V spremenjeni direktivi zgoraj navedeni pojmi niso opredeljeni, z izjemo pojma „hitra cesta“, ki je opredeljen s sklicevanjem na sporazum in torej na njegovo opredelitev pojma „hitra cesta“.
Since not all the Member States are parties to that agreement, this reference concerns the version of the agreement in force when Directive 85/337 was adopted, that is the agreement of 15 November 1975
Ker vse države članice niso podpisnice tega sporazuma, se to sklicevanje nana�a na različico sporazuma, ki je veljala ob sprejetju Direktive 85/337, to je različico z dne 15. novembra 1975.
According to Annex II to the agreement, an express road is a road reserved for motor traffic accessible only from interchanges or controlled junctions and on which stopping and parking are prohibited on the running carriageway(s).
Hitra cesta je v skladu z besedilom priloge II k sporazumu cesta, določena za avtomobilski promet, na katero je uvoz mogoč samo skozi deteljice ali križi�če, na kateri je promet reguliran in se je na njej prepovedano zaustaviti ali stati.
It does not follow from that definition that roads sited in urban areas would a priori be excluded.
Iz te opredelitve ne izhaja, da bi bile ceste v mestnih območjih a priori izključene.
On the contrary, unless roads in built-up areas are expressly excluded, the words ‘express roads’ cover urban roads which have the characteristics set out in that annex.
Nasprotno, ker ceste v mestih niso izrecno izključene, je treba domnevati, da pojem „hitre ceste“ zajema mestne ceste, ki imajo značilnosti, določene v tej prilogi.
The same agreement defines the concept of ‘motorway’ as inter alia a road specially designed and built for motor traffic, which does not serve properties bordering on it, does not cross at level with any road, railway or tramway track, or footpath, and is specially sign-posted as a motorway.
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da je v istem sporazumu opredeljen pojem „avtocesta“ kot cesta, ki je med drugim projektirana in zgrajena izključno za promet motornih vozil in se ne uporablja za druge namene, ki se v nivoju ne križa z drugo cesto, železni�ko ali tramvajsko progo ali pe�potjo in ki je posebej označena kot avtocesta.
Even though the amended directive does not make express reference to that definition, the agreement may be a useful tool for understanding the similar concept in Annex I to the directive.
Čeprav v spremenjeni direktivi ni izrecnega sklicevanja na to opredelitev, je lahko sporazum koristen pripomoček za razumevanje podobnega pojma iz priloge I k tej direktivi.
Accordingly, urban road projects must be regarded as falling within the scope of the amended directive.
Zato je treba projekte del na mestnih cestah obravnavati kot projekte, za katere se uporablja spremenjena direktiva.
As is clear from CODA’s observations, which are not contradicted in that respect, the projects at issue in the main proceedings concern a road intended exclusively for motor traffic, without traffic lights, pavements or verges for pedestrians and without
Kot izhaja iz stali�č združenja CODA, ki se jim glede tega ni ugovarjalo, se projekti, obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, nana�ajo na cesto, namenjeno izključno prometu motornih vozil, brez semaforjev, pločnika ali pasu za pe�ce ter brez
2008 — CASE C-142/07 bus stops or taxi ranks.
2008 – ZADEVA C-142/07 avtobusnih postaj in postajali�č za taksije.
It is for the referring court to make the findings of fact from which it may verify those aspects in order to determine, taking account of the guidance set out in paragraphs 30 to 33 of this judgment, whether those projects are covered by one of the concepts in Annex I to the amended directive and must therefore be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora ugotoviti dejstva, na podlagi katerih bo lahko preverilo te elemente, da bo ob upo�tevanju napotkov iz točk od 30 do 33 te sodbe odločilo, ali spadajo ti projekti pod enega od pojmov iz priloge I k spremenjeni direktivi in je zato treba izvesti presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje.
For that purpose, the fact that point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I to the amended directive refers to projects for the ‘construction’ of the types of road mentioned, whereas the case in the main proceedings concerns projects for refurbishment and improvement of an existing road, does not mean that the latter are excluded from the scope of the amended directive.
V zvezi s tem je treba pojasniti, da to, da se priloga I, točka 7(b) in (c), k spremenjeni direktivi nana�a na projekte „gradnje“ vrste cest, ki so navedene, medtem ko se projekti, obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, nana�ajo na prenovo in izbolj�anje obstoječe ceste, ne pomeni, da se za slednje 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 (see, to that effect, Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8253, paragraph 46, and Abraham and Others, paragraph 32).
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 (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-227/01, ZOdl., str. I-8253, točka 46, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Abraham in drugi, točka 32).
If it appeared that the projects at issue in the main proceedings do not concern motorways or express roads within the meaning of point 7(b) of Annex I to the amended directive or projects referred to in point 7(c) thereof, the referring court would still be required to examine whether the projects at issue in the main proceedings are covered by Annex II to the amended directive, either under point 10(e), inasmuch as they concern construction of a road, or under the first indent of point 13 read together with point 10(e) of Annex II, in so far as they concern a change to a road construction project.
Če bi se izkazalo, da se projekti, obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, ne nana�ajo na avtoceste ali hitre ceste v smislu priloge I, točka 7(b), k spremenjeni direktivi niti na projekte iz navedene točke 7(c), mora predložitveno sodi�če prav tako preveriti, ali se za projekte, obravnavane v postopku v glavni stvari, uporablja priloga II k tej direktivi bodisi na podlagi njene točke 10(e), če gre za gradnjo ceste, bodisi na podlagi njene točke 13, prva alinea, v povezavi s prilogo II, točka 10(e), k navedeni direktivi, če gre za spremembo projekta gradnje cest.
In that respect, it must be recalled that if, like Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, the same provision of the amended directive 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 the amended 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 (see, regarding Directive 85/337, Kraaijeveld and Others, paragraph 50, and Abraham and Others, paragraph 37).
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da čeprav imajo države članice na podlagi iste določbe spremenjene direktive diskrecijsko pravico – kot so jo imele na podlagi člena 4(2) Direktive 85/337 – da določijo, ali je treba glede projekta iz ene od skupin, na�tetih v prilogi II k spremenjeni direktivi, izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, je ta diskrecijska pravica omejena z obveznostjo, določeno v členu 2(1) spremenjene direktive, da se presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje (glej v zvezi z Direktivo 85/337 zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kraaijeveld in drugi, točka 50, ter Abraham in drugi, točka 37).
States must take account of each of those criteria in order to determine whether projects are likely to have an effect on the environment (Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain, paragraph 77).
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA meril, da bi odločile, ali bodo imeli projekti pomemben vpliv na okolje (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Španiji z dne 16. marca 2006, točka 77).
In that regard, in the same way as Directive 85/337, the amended directive adopts an overall assessment of the effects of projects or the alteration thereof on the environment.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je cilj spremenjene direktive, enako kot Direktive 85/337, celostna presojo 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 to result from the use and exploitation of the end product of those works (see, as regards Directive 85/337, Abraham and Others, paragraphs 42 and 43).
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 vplivov na okolje, ki bi lahko nastali z uporabo in izrabljanjem objektov, ki nastanejo s temi deli (glej v zvezi z Direktivo 85/337 zgoraj navedeno sodbo Abraham in drugi, točki 42 in 43).
As far as concerns the location of projects, point 2(g) and (h) of Annex III to the amended directive mentions densely populated areas and landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance as selection criteria which the Member States must take into account, in accordance with Article 4(3) of the directive, for the case-by-case examination or the setting of the thresholds or criteria provided for in Article 4(2), in order to determine whether a project must be made subject to an assessment.
Glede lokacije projektov so v prilogi III, točka 2(g) in (h), k spremenjeni direktivi navedena gosto naseljena območja in zgodovinsko, kulturno ali arheolo�ko pomembne krajine kot izbirna merila, ki jih morajo države članice upo�tevati v skladu s člen om 4(3) navedene direktive med preverjanjem za vsak primer posebej ali postavljanjem pragov ali meril, določenih v odstavku 2 tega člena, da bi odločile, ali je treba glede projekta izvesti presojo.
Those selection criteria may also concern urban road projects (see, to that effect, Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain, paragraph 79).
Ta izbirna merila pa se lahko nana�ajo tudi na projekte del na mestnih cestah (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Španiji z dne 16. marca 2006, točka 79).
However, the fact relied on by the Ayuntamiento de Madrid that the projects at issue in the main proceedings should have beneficial effects on the environment is not relevant in determining whether it is necessary to make those projects subject to an assessment of their environmental impact.
Nasprotno, dejstvo, ki ga je navedel Ayuntamiento de Madrid, da naj bi imeli projekti, obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, ugodne vplive na okolje, se ne more upo�tevati v okviru presoje, ali je treba glede navedenih projektov izvesti presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje.
Moreover, like that in Article 3 of Directive 85/337, the list in Article 3 of the amended directive of the factors to be taken into consideration, such as the effects of a project on, inter alia, human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air or cultural heritage, shows, in itself, that the environmental impact whose assessment the amended dir -ective is designed to enable is not only the impact of the works envisaged but also,
Poleg tega iz seznama upo�tevnih dejavnikov, navedenih v členu 3 spremenjene direktive, kot so vplivi, ki jih ima projekt med drugim na ljudi, živalstvo in rastlinstvo, na tla, vodo, zrak, podnebje ali kulturno dedi�čino – enako kot iz seznama iz člena 3 Direktive 85/337 – izhaja, da vpliv na okolje, katerega presojo naj bi omogočila spremenjena direktiva, ni le vpliv načrtovanih del, temveč tudi in predvsem vpliv del,
2008 — CASE C-142/07 and above all, the impact of the project to be carried out (see, to that effect, Abraham and Others, paragraph 44).
2008 – ZADEVA C-142/07 ki jih je treba izvesti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Abraham in drugi, točka 44).
Lastly, as the Court has already noted with regard to Directive 85/337, 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 (see, as regards Directive 85/337, Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I-5901, paragraph 76, and Abraham and Others, paragraph 27).
Nazadnje je treba opozoriti na to – kot je Sodi�če že poudarilo glede Direktive 85/337 – da se cilj spremenjene direktive ne sme zaobiti z razdrobitvijo projekta in da se zaradi neupo�tevanje kumulativnih vplivov več projektov projekti ne smejo v celoti izogniti obveznosti presoje, če bi upo�tevani skupaj lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje v smislu člena 2(1) spremenjene direktive (glej v zvezi z Direktivo 85/337 sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski, C-392/96, Recueil, str. I-5901, točka 76, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Abraham in drugi, točka 27).
As regards the projects at issue in the main proceedings, it is clear from the order for reference that they are all part of the larger project ‘Madrid calle 30’.
Glede projektov, obravnavanih v postopku v glavni stvari, iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da vsi spadajo pod krovni projekt „Madrid calle 30“.
It is for the referring court to verify whether they must be dealt with together by virtue, in particular, of their geographical proximity, their similarities and their interactions.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali jih je treba obravnavati skupaj zlasti zaradi njihove geografske bližine, podobnosti in sovplivanja.
Therefore, the answer to the first three questions must be that the amended directive 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.
Zato je treba na prva tri vpra�anja odgovoriti, da je treba spremenjeno direktivo 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) ali 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.
By its fourth question, the referring court asks essentially whether the studies undertaken and reports compiled on the projects at issue in the main proceedings satisfy the requirement of an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the amended directive.
S četrtim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je bila s �tudijami in poročili, ki so bila narejena glede projektov, obravnavanih v postopku v glavni stvari, izpolnjena zahteva, da se presodi vplive na okolje, kot je določeno s spremenjeno direktivo.
Under the procedure envisaged in Article 234 EC, which is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court.
V okviru postopka, določenega v členu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi pristojnosti med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, je za presojo zadevnih dejstev pristojno nacionalno sodi�če.