natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, that requirement should not be taken into account to satisfy the definition of motorway under the EIA Directive, otherwise the Member States could possibly circumvent the environmental impact assessment requirement by designating a road accordingly.
Ta pogoj pa se ne bi smel upo�tevati pri opredelitvi avtoceste v skladu z Direktivo o PVO, ker bi se sicer države članice lahko z označitvijo cest izognile obveznosti presoje vplivov na okolje.
The definition of motorway within the meaning of the EIA Directive therefore also covers urban motorways.
Pojem avtocesta v smislu Direktive o PVO torej obsega tudi avtoceste v mestih.
This applies to the EIA Directive in
To velja predvsem za Direktivo o PVO.
It has a wide scope and a broad purpose.
Njeno področje uporabe in namen sta zelo �iroka.
14 As has already been mentioned, 15before 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.
14 Kot je že bilo navedeno, 15 mora biti pri projektih, ki bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, predvsem zaradi njihove vrste, velikosti ali lokacije, pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo opravljena presoja njihovih vplivov.
The environmental effects of roads can often also occur specifically within urban areas.
Vplivi cest na okolje se lahko pogosto pokažejo tudi v mestih ali pa predvsem v njih.
Consequently, an interpretation of the term ‘road’ which would exclude urban roads from the scope of the EIA Directive should also be rejected.
Zato je treba tudi v zvezi s pojmom „cesta“ zavrniti razlago, na podlagi katere bi bile mestne ceste izključene s področja uporabe Direktive o PVO.
Many translations of the term ‘road’ indicate that urban roads should be excluded from the scope of the EIA Directive.
Oporna točka za izključitev mestnih cest s področja uporabe Direktive o PVO izhaja iz nekaterih prevodov pojma „cesta“.
For example, in the Spanish version of the EIA Directive the term ‘carretera’ is used for single-carriageway roads, which like the term ‘route’ used in the French is understood primarily to mean rural roads.
V �panski različici Direktive o PVO se tako za enostavne ceste uporablja izraz „carretera“, ki ga je treba podobno kot v franco�čini uporabljeni izraz „route“ razumeti predvsem kot podeželsko cesto.
If the EIA Directive covered only motorways, express roads and rural roads, it would not be wrong to relate all three terms to roads outside urban areas.
Če bi Direktiva o PVO obsegala le avtoceste, hitre ceste in podeželske ceste, ne bi bilo napačno, vse tri pojme povezati s cestami izven mest.
However, there are also language versions of the EIA Directive in which the notion of road explicitly also covers urban transport routes, such as the German term ‘Straße’ or the English term ‘road’.
Vendar pa obstajajo tudi jezikovne različice Direktive o PVO, v katerih pojem cesta nedvoumno obsega tudi prometnice znotraj mest, kot na primer nem�ki izraz „Straße“ ali angle�ki izraz „road“.
It must therefore be examined specifically whether the environmental impact of the contested projects should have been assessed.
I-5403, točka 28) ter splo�neje sodbe z dne 12. novembra 1969 v zadevi Stauder (29/69, Recueil, str.
14 — Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others (cited in footnote 13, paragraph 31); Case C-435/97 WWF and Others [1999] ECR I-5613, paragraph 40; and Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 8, paragraph 32).
14 – Sodba Kraaijeveld in drugi (navedena v opombi 13, točka 31), sodba z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi WWF in drugi (C-435/97, Recueil, str. I-5613, točka 40) ter sodba Abraham in drugi (navedena v opombi 8, točka 32).
The different language versions of a Community text must be given a uniform interpretation.
Različne jezikovne različice predpisa Skupnosti se morajo razlagati enotno.
In the case of divergence between the language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference
Če se različice med seboj razlikujejo, se mora
15 — See point 27 et seq. above.
15 – Glej točko 27 in naslednje teh sklepnih predlogov.
However, the requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment under Article 4(1) exists only where the projects are to be regarded as construction of the road in question.
Obveznost presoje vplivov na okolje v skladu s členom 4(1) pa obstaja le, če je treba projekte obravnavati kot gradnjo posamezne ceste.
Under Article 4(1) and point 7 of Annex I to the EIA Directive, an environmental impact assessment must be carried out where a motorway or an express road is constructed (letter b) and in the case of the 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 (letter c).
V skladu s členom 4(1) in Prilogo I, točka 7, k Direktivi o PVO, je presoja vplivov na okolje obvezna, če se gradi avtocesta ali hitra cesta (točka b) ter pri gradnji nove ceste s �tirimi ali več pasovi ali novi razvrstitvi pasov na obstoječi cesti in/ali �iritvi 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 (točka c).
Whilst the present case does concern the improvement and widening of existing roads, such measures can also be treated as equivalent to the construction of roads.
V obravnavanem primeru gre sicer za obnovo in �iritev obstoječih cest, vendar pa se lahko tudi taki ukrepi izenačijo z gradnjo cest.
In the case of point 7(c) of Annex I to the EIA Direct- ive, this follows directly from the definition, which includes the widening of certain roads.
V primeru Priloge I, točka 7(c), k Direktivi o PVO, to izhaja že iz opredelitve, ki vključuje �iritev določenih cest.
As has already been stated, the definition of motorway and express road can be found in the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries.
Kot je že bilo ugotovljeno, izhaja opredelitev avtocest in hitrih cest iz Evropskega sporazuma o glavnih mednarodnih prometnih žilah.
Roads within the meaning of point 7(c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive are defined sufficiently there, in particular if it is taken into account that a general exclusion of urban roads from the environmental impact assessment is unlawful.
Ceste v skladu s Prilogo I, točka 7(c), k Direktivi o PVO so v tej določbi dovolj določene, �e posebej ob upo�tevanju, da je splo�na izključitev mestnih cest iz presoje vplivov na okolje nedopustna.
The application of the rules on roads under point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive therefore depends neither on their specific effects on the environment nor on their location, their budget or their combined effects with other projects.
Za uporabo določb o cestah v skladu s Prilogo I, točka 7(b) in (c), k Direktivi o PVO torej niso bistveni njihovi konkretni vplivi na okolje, niti njihova lokacija ali proračun ali sovplivanje z drugimi projekti.
The widening of motorways and express roads within the meaning of point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive is possibly also to be regarded as construction, however.
Vendar se lahko tudi �iritev avtocest in hitrih cest v smislu Priloge I, točka 7(b), k Direktivi o PVO obravnava kot gradnja.
In a judgment on a Spanish railway project, the Court found that the doubling of an already existing railway track could not be considered a mere modification to an earlier project within the meaning of point 12 of Annex II to the EIA Directive but the construction of a line for long-distance railway traffic under point 7 of Annex I. 16It relied on the likely significant environmental effects of that project.
Sodi�če je v sodbi v zvezi z nekim �panskim železni�kim projektom ugotovilo, da se �iritev obstoječe železni�ke proge na dva tira ne more obravnavati le kot sprememba prej�njega projekta v smislu Priloge II, točka 12, k Direktivi o PVO, temveč kot gradnja daljinske železni�ke proge v skladu s Prilogo I, točka 7. 16 Pri tem se je sklicevalo na morebitne občutne vplive tega projekta na okolje.
See Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany (Großkrotzenburg) [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraph 35, where the Court considered the enlargement of a power station through the addition of a new block to be a separate project.
Glej sodbo z dne 11. avgusta 1995 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (Großkrotzenburg) (C-431/92, Recueil, str. I-2189, točka 35), v kateri je Sodi�če �iritev elektrarne za nov blok obravnavalo kot samostojen projekt.
It cannot therefore be ruled out that the contested projects concern roads which fall within the scope of one of the definitions laid down in point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I to the
V skladu s tem ni mogoče izključiti, da se obravnavani projekti nana�ajo na ceste, ki spadajo v okvir ene od opredelitev iz Priloge I, točka 7(b) ali (c), k Direktivi o
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIÓN-CODA road construction projects under the first indent of point 13 of Annex II in conjunction with point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I and point 10(e) of Annex II.
ECOLOGISTAS EN ACCIŎN-CODA velja isto za spremembe projektov gradnje cest.
As the Commission also argues, this idea may be applied in principle to road construction projects.
Kot navaja tudi Komisija, se lahko načeloma tako sklepa tudi pri projektih gradnje cest.
However, a distinction must also be drawn vis-à-vis changes to road construction projects under the first indent of point 13 of Annex II.
Treba pa jih je ločiti od spremembe projektov gradnje cest v skladu s Prilogo II, točka 13, prva alinea.
Works in connection with existing roads can therefore be regarded as construction only where they are equivalent to the construction of a new road in terms of their effects on the environment.
Ukrepe v zvezi z obstoječimi cestami se torej lahko obravnava kot gradnjo le, če so glede na njihove vplive na okolje izenačeni z novogradnjo.
17 The construction of a new road could in particular be treated as equivalent to the widening of a single-carriageway road into one of the roads referred to in point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive.
17 Z novogradnjo bi lahko bila izenačena predvsem �iritev enostavne ceste v eno od cest, navedenih v Prilogi I, točka 7(b) in (c), k Direktivi o PVO.
It is settled caselaw 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), to specify 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.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso imajo države članice na podlagi člena 4(2) Direktive o PVO diskrecijsko pravico, ki je omejena z obveznostjo iz člena 2(1), da se glede projektov, ki bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, med drugim zaradi njihove vrste, velikosti ali lokacije, opravi presoja njihovih vplivov.
18In this connection, the characteristics of the projects mentioned by the referring court are significant.
18V zvezi s tem so pomembne značilnosti projektov, ki jih navaja predložitveno sodi�če.
Other road construction projects
Drugi projekti gradnje cest
The Member States must take into consideration the nature, size and location of the project in order to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely.
Države članice morajo upo�tevati vrsto, velikost in lokacijo projekta, da bi ugotovile, ali bo projekt verjetno pomembno vplival na okolje.
19In that regard, the EIA Directive seeks an overall assessment of the environmental impact of projects or of their modification.
19 V zvezi s tem se Direktiva o PVO navezuje na celostno presojo vplivov, ki jih imajo projekti ali njihove spremembe na okolje.
20 Specifically, both the direct effects of the works envisaged themselves and the environmental impact liable to result from the use and exploitation of the end product
20V posameznem primeru je treba upo�tevati neposredne vplive načrtovanih del in vplive na okolje, ki bi lahko nastali z uporabo in izrabljanjem objektov, ki nasta-
If, on the basis of the above criteria, the contested projects do not fall within the scope of Annex I to the EIA Directive, it may nevertheless be necessary to assess their environmental impact.
Tudi če obravnavani projekti glede na navedene pogoje ne spadajo na področje uporabe Priloge I k Direktivi o PVO, je njihove vplive na okolje morda vseeno treba preveriti.
Under Article 4(2) and point 10(e) of Annex II to the EIA Directive, the Member States must determine through a case-by-case examination or thresholds or criteria set by them whether the environmental impact of the construction of roads not included in Annex I must be assessed.
V skladu s členom 4(2) in Prilogo II, točka 10(e), k Direktivi o PVO države članice s preverjanjem za vsak primer posebej ali s pragovi ali merili, ki jih postavi država članica, odločijo, ali se bo glede projekta gradnje cest, ki ni vključen v Prilogo I, opravila presoja vplivov na okolje.
The same applies to changes to
V skladu s Prilogo II, točka 13, prva alinea, v povezavi s Prilogo I, točka 7(b) in (c), ter Prilogo II, točka 10(e),
19 — Case C-332/04 Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 5, paragraph 77) and Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 8, paragraph 38).
19 – Sodbi Komisija proti Španiji (navedena v opombi 5, točka 77) in Abraham (navedena v opombi 8, točka 38).
17 — See my Opinion in Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 9, point 47).
17 – Glej moje sklepne predloge v zadevi Abraham in drugi (navedeni v opombi 9, točka 47).
20 — Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 8, paragraph 42).
20 – Sodba Abraham in drugi (navedena v opombi 8, točka 42).
21Consideration would thus have to be given, for instance, to an increased volume of transport.
21Tako je treba na primer pomisliti tudi na povečan obseg prometa.
In principle, favourable environmental effects of a project, as put forward by the municipality of Madrid at the hearing, are not as such significant within the meaning of the EIA Directive.
Ugodni vplivi projekta na okolje, kot jih je navedla madridska mestna uprava na ustni obravnavi, načeloma niso pomembni v smislu Direktive o PVO.
The aims of the direct- ive — preventing the creation of pollution (first recital) and the protection of the environment and the quality of life (third recital) — do not require an assessment to be conducted only because a project can significantly improve the state of the environment.
Zaradi namenov Direktive – preprečevanja povzročanja onesnaževanja (prva uvodna izjava) in varstva okolja ter kakovosti življenja (tretja uvodna izjava) – ni treba opraviti presoje zgolj zato, ker se lahko zaradi projekta bistveno izbolj�a stanje okolja.
In examining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary, however, the expectation of favourable environmental effects cannot offset significant adverse environmental effects of a project in such a way that no assessment at all takes place because on balance the project as a whole is beneficial to the environment.
V okviru preverjanja, ali je treba izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, s pričakovanjem ugodnih vplivov na okolje vendarle ni mogoče nadomestiti zelo slabih vplivov na okolje, tako da se presoja sploh ne bi opravila, ker je projekt per saldo ugoden za okolje.
Furthermore, a high density of population and the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of locations are among the criteria which the Member States must take into account under Article 4(3) of the EIA Directive in the case-by-case examination or the setting of thresholds or criteria for the purpose of Article 4(2).
Tudi gostota poseljenosti in zgodovinski, kulturni ali arheolo�ki pomen lokacij spadata med pogoje, ki jih morajo države članice v skladu s členom 4(3) Direktive o PVO upo�tevati pri preverjanju za vsak primer posebej ali pri določitvi pragov ali meril v smislu odstavka 2 te določbe.
Precisely the same considerations apply in this respect to road construction projects as to urban development projects, which were the subject of the judgment in Case C-332/04. 22
V zvezi s tem velja za projekte gradnje cest povsem isto kot za urbanistične projekte, ki so bili predmet sodbe v zadevi C-332/04. 22
Lastly, the objective of the EIA Direct- ive cannot be circumvented by the splitting of projects.
Končno se namena Direktive o PVO ne sme obiti z drobitvijo projektov. 23
23Where several projects, taken together, may have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Article 2(1), their environmental impact should be assessed as a whole.
Nasprotno, če več projektov skupaj lahko pomembno vpliva na okolje v smislu člena 2(1), je treba presoditi njihov vpliv na okolje v celoti.
24It is necessary to consider projects jointly in particular where they are connected, follow on from one another, or their environmental effects overlap.
24Skupno obravnavanje različnih projektov je nujno predvsem, če so povezani, temeljijo drug na drugem ali se njihovi vplivi na okolje prekrivajo.
Whilst the budget of a project is possibly an indicator of its size, it appears unlikely that its mere scale allows inferences to be drawn as to its environmental effects.
Proračun projekta je sicer lahko kazalnik njegove velikosti, vendar pa se ne zdi verjetno, da zgolj njegov obseg omogoča sklepanje o njegovih vplivih na okolje.
If the budget contains information on environmental effects or the reduction of those effects, other planning documents generally exist which describe those effects or their reduction much better.
Čeprav bi proračun že vseboval podatke o vplivih na okolje ali o njihovem zmanj�anju, mora obstajati tudi druga projektna dokumentacija, ki te vplive oziroma njihovo zmanj�anje opisuje dosti bolje.
It therefore appears rather strange to use the budget of a project as a criterion for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary.
Zato se ne zdi prepričljivo, da bi bilo treba proračun projekta uporabiti kot oporno točko za ugotovitev, ali je potrebna presoja vplivov na okolje.
23 — Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland (cited in footnote 18, paragraph 76) and Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 8, paragraph 27).
23 – Sodbi Komisija proti Irski (navedena v opombi 18, točka 76) in Abraham in drugi (navedena v opombi 8, točka 27).
21 — Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others (cited in footnote 8, paragraph 43).
24 – Sodbi Komisija proti Irski (navedena v opombi 18, točka 76) in Abraham in drugi (navedena v opombi 8, točki 27 in 28).
22 — Cited in footnote 5, paragraph 79.
21 – Sodba Abraham in drugi (navedena v opombi 8, točka 43).22 – Navedena v opombi 5, točka 79.
The procedural requirements relating to environmental impact assessments arising from the EIA Directive are applicable to urban road projects
Pravila postopka presoje vplivov na okolje, določena v Direktivi o PVO, se uporabljajo za projekte del na mestnih cestah,
In the present case, the geographical proximity of the five projects, their similarity, their combined effects in terms of urban traffic management and the fact that they were dealt with together at the hearing and in the development consent procedure would suggest that they should be considered together.
V obravnavani zadevi bi bilo treba zadevnih pet projektov obravnavati skupaj predvsem zaradi njihove prostorske bližine, njihove istovrstnosti, njihovega součinkovanja v okviru urejanja mestnega prometa ter njihove skupne obravnave v okviru zasli�anja in soglasja za izvedbo.
Because all the sub-projects affect a limited sector of the urban road network, their environmental effects will in all likelihood overlap and accentuate one another, both in the construction phase and when the improved and widened roads are used.
Ker se vsi delni projekti nana�ajo na omejen del mestnega cestnega omrežja, se bodo njihovi vplivi na okolje pri gradnji in pri uporabi obnovljenih ter raz�irjenih cest najverjetneje prekrivali in vzajemno krepili.
— where they are projects within the meaning of point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I, or
– če gre za projekte iz Priloge I, točka 7(b) ali (c), ali
Furthermore, it seems to be common ground that the contested projects form part of the overall project ‘Madrid calle M-30’ to improve and widen urban main roads.
Dalje se zdi, da obstaja soglasje glede tega, da so obravnavani projekti del skupnega projekta „Madrid calle M-30“, katerega predmet je obnova in �iritev glavnih mestnih prometnic.
It cannot therefore be ruled out that their environmental impact should be assessed having regard to the overall project.
Zato ni mogoče izključiti tega, da se morajo njihovi vplivi na okolje presojati ob upo�tevanju celotnega projekta.
— where they are projects within the meaning of point 10(e) or the first indent of point 13 of Annex II which are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location, or if appropriate their combined effects with other projects.
– če gre za projekte iz Priloge II, točka 10(e) ali točka 13, prva alinea, ki bodo zaradi svoje vrste, velikosti ali lokacije, ali glede na okoli�čine primera zaradi svojega sovplivanja z drugimi projekti verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
Moreover, neither the information in nor the nature of the present reference for a preliminary ruling allows the Court to examine whether specific characteristics of the contested projects require an environmental impact assessment.
Sicer pa Sodi�če niti na podlagi podatkov niti na podlagi lastnosti obravnavanega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ne more ugotavljati, ali je treba zaradi nekaterih lastnosti obravnavanih projektov izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje.
It is therefore for the referring court to carry out that examination.
To presojo bo zato moralo opraviti predložitveno sodi�če.
In this connection, the municipality of Madrid raises the additional question whether the contested projects are to be regarded as urban development projects within the meaning of point 10(b) of Annex II.
Madridska mestna uprava postavlja v zvezi s tem dodatno vpra�anje, ali je treba projekte iz spora o glavni stvari obravnavati kot urbanistične projekte v skladu s Prilogo II, točka 10(b).
However, there is no need to answer that question in the present case because in any event the case concerns changes of road construction projects within the meaning of point 10(e) and the first indent of point 13.
Na to vpra�anje pa v obravnavani zadevi ni treba odgovoriti, ker gre v vsakem primeru vsaj za spremembo projekta gradnje cest v smislu točke 10(e) in točke 13, prva alinea.
The question whether the environmental impact is to be assessed because the projects are likely to have significant environmental effects does not depend on their classification in another category of projects in the same annex.
Ali je treba opraviti presojo vplivov na okolje, ker bi lahko projekti pomembno vplivali na okolje, ni odvisno od njihove umestitve v drugo kategorijo projektov iz iste priloge.
B — The fourth question — Alternatives to the environmental impact assessment provisions, the Court is empowered to do so only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it whilst it is for the national court to ascertain the facts which have given rise to the dispute and to establish the consequences which they have for the judgment which it is required to deliver.
B – Četrto vprašanje – druge možnosti poleg presoje vplivov na okolje na podlagi dejanskega stanja, ki mu ga predstavi nacionalno sodi�če, medtem ko je nacionalno sodi�če pristojno, da ugotovi dejstva, na katerih temelji spor, ter da na podlagi njih sklepa in odloči.
25The information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court to reply usefully but must also enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. 26
25 Podatki iz predložitvenih odločb naj bi Sodi�ču omogočili, da poda koristne odgovore, vladam držav članic in drugim strankam pa, da v skladu s členom 23 Statuta Sodi�ča predložijo svoja stali�ča. 26