natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The spirit and purpose of the EIA directive require, rather, the use of the term ‘construction’ to be understood as referring to the fact that, in accordance with the definition of project under Article 1(2), a project within the meaning of the EIA directive includes the execution of installations or other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape, but not mere changes in the use of existing installations. 7
Iz smisla in namena Direktive PVO namreč izhaja, da je treba uporabo pojma „gradnja“ razumeti kot napotilo na to, da projekt v smislu Direktive PVO, v skladu z opredelitvijo projekta v členu 1(2), vključuje izvedbo instalacijskih del ali projektov ali druge posege v naravno okolje in krajino, ne pa spremembe uporabe obstoječih obratov. 7
The Court thus not only takes the general view that the EIA directive has a very wide scope and a very broad purpose, 9 but it also specifically gives a broad interpretation to the notion of modifications to a project under point 12 of Annex II.
Sodi�če zato ne izhaja le na splo�no iz tega, da je področje veljavnosti Direktive PVO obsežno in njen namen zelo �irok, 9 ampak razlaga �iroko tudi pojem spremembe projekta v skladu s Prilogo II, točka 12.
It has extended it to projects included in Annex II, even though point 12 of Annex II refers expressly only to projects included in Annex I. 10
Raz�irilo ga je na projekte iz Priloge II, čeprav Priloga II, točka 12, izrecno omenja le projekte iz Priloge I. 10
Under Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) and the first, fifth, sixth, eighth and eleventh recitals, the fundamental objective of the directive is that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location should be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects. 8
Iz člena 1(1) in iz člena 2(1) ter iz prve, pete, �este, osme in enajste uvodne izjave izhaja, da je glavni cilj Direktive, da se pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje. 8
That objective would not be achieved if in the case of the transport infrastructure projects mentioned in point 7 of Annex I, in particular airports, assessment
Ta cilj ne bi bil dosežen, če bi bila presoja projektov prometne infrastrukture, nave-
In the judgment in WWF and Others, it applied that caselaw to the restructuring of an airport which did not reach the necessary dimensions for a mandatory impact assessment under point 7 of Annex 1 either before or after modification. The restructuring of the airport could not be excluded
V sodbi WWF in drugi je to sodno prakso uporabilo pri prestrukturiranju letali�ča, ki niti pred spremembo niti po njej ni imelo obsega, ki je v skladu s Prilogo I,
7 — In principle the effects of possible uses on the environment should have been assessed when an installation was constructed so that the results of that assessment can be used in decisions on subsequent changes of use.
7 – Načelno naj bi bili vplivi možnih načinov uporabe na okolje predmet presoje že pri izvedbi instalacijskih del ali projektov, tako da se lahko sklepe te presoje uporabi pri odločitvah o kasnej�ih spremembah uporabe.
9 — Kraaijeveld and Others (cited in footnote 3), paragraphs 31 and 39, and Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 46.
9 – V opombi 3 navedena sodba Kraaijeveld in drugi, točki 31 in 39, ter v opombi 6 navedena sodba Komisija proti Španiji, točka 46.
8 — See Linster (cited in footnote 5), paragraph 52; Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 47; and the judgments cited in footnote 3.
10 – V opombi 3 navedena sodba Kraaijeveld in drugi, točka 40, in sodba z dne 16. septembra 1999 v zadevi WWF in drugi (C-435/97, Recueil, str. I-5613, točka 40).
10 — Kraaijeveld and Others (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 40, and Case C-435/97 WWF and Others [1999] ECR I-5613, paragraph 40.
8 – Glej v opombi 5 navedeno sodbo Linster, točka 52, in v opombi 6 navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Španiji, točka 47, ter sodbe, navedene v opombi 3.
ABRAHAM AND OTHERS from the scope of the EIA directive from the outset, irrespective of the likely effects on the environment.
ABRAHAM IN DRUGI točka 7, potreben za obvezno presojo vplivov na okolje.
11 extended. Belgium, SAB and TNT consider this to be ruled out because the EIA directive refers only to the criterion of the length of an airport’s runway.
Prestrukturiranja tega letali�ča se ni smelo že vnaprej, neodvisno od morebitnih vplivov na okolje, izvzeti s področja uporabe Direktive PVO. 11
However, as the Commission also argues, that criterion serves only to distinguish between larger projects, which must be assessed in any event, and smaller projects, which are subject to an assessment only if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.
Ta značilnost pa je namenjena – kot trdi tudi Komisija – le razmejitvi med večjimi projekti, ki so v vsakem primeru predmet presoje, in manj�imi projekti, pri katerih je treba opraviti presojo le, če bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje.
12 It is therefore such likely effects and not the extension of a runway that determine whether an assessment is required.
12Za obveznost presoje so zato odločilni ti mogoči vplivi in ne podalj�anje vzletne steze.
An extension of the runway is only an important — in some cases even compelling — indication of significant effects on the environment.
Podalj�anje vzletne steze je le pomemben – v določenih okoli�činah celo neovrgljiv – indic za obstoj pomembnih vplivov na okolje.
Other aspects of a project should not be disregarded, however.
Drugih vidikov nekega projekta pa se ob tem ne sme zanemariti.
In contrast to the works to which the judgment in WWF and Others relates, however, no runways were extended in the present case.
V nasprotju z ukrepi, na katere se nana�a sodba WWF in drugi, pa v obravnavanem primeru vzletna steza ni bila podalj�ana.
The runway-related works evidently amounted only to making the runway operational, the installation of a landing system, the widening of a parallel runway and the construction of two exits.
Pri ukrepih, ki so se nana�ali na vzletno stezo, je �lo očitno za popravilo, za opremo s pristajalnim sistemom, za raz�iritev vzporedne vzletne steze in za vzpostavitev dveh izvozov.
The question referred therefore expressly seeks to ascertain whether a project is subject to an assessment even where runways are not
Zato se vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje izrecno nana�a na to, ali mora biti predmet presoje tudi projekt, pri katerem ne gre za podalj�anje vzletnih stez.
In summary it should be stated that modifications to the infrastructure of an existing airport with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more which are not to be treated as equivalent to the construction of a new airport must be assessed with regard to their effects on the environment pursuant to Article 4(2) of the EIA directive and point 7 of Annex I and point 12 of Annex II thereto if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or local factors.
Skupno je treba ugotoviti, da je treba pri spremembi infrastrukture obstoječega letali�ča z vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več, ki je ni mogoče enačiti z novogradnjo, v skladu s členom 4(2), Prilogo I, točka 7, in Prilogo II, točka 12, k Direktivi PVO opraviti presojo njenih vplivov na okolje, če bo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivala na okolje.
11 — WWF and Others (cited in footnote 10), paragraph 49.
11 – V opombi 10 navedena sodba WWF in drugi, točka 49.
This is made even clearer in the Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in that case, point 43.
Še jasnej�i so sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Mischa z dne 29. aprila 1999 v zadevi WWF in drugi (C-435/97, Recueil, str. I-5613, točka 43).
12 — See point 23 et seq. above.
12 – Glej zgoraj, točka 23 in naslednje.
C — The first question consent for a project.
C – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
If a project’s effects on the environment must be assessed under the EIA directive, that assessment must, under Article 2(1), be conducted before consent is given.
PVO presoditi vplive projekta na okolje, se mora ta presoja v skladu s členom 2(1) opraviti pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo projekta.
The agreement as a project
Sporazum kot projekt
According to the wording of the first question, the referring court seems to want to know whether an agreement may be regarded as a project within the meaning of the EIA directive.
Zdi se, da želi Sodi�če glede na besedilo prvega vpra�anja izvedeti, ali je mogoče sporazum �teti za projekt v smislu Direktive PVO.
The Czech Republic and the Commission believe that it is possible to regard an agreement as development consent if under national law it has the effect of development consent.
Če�ka republika in Komisija menita, da je mogoče sporazum �teti za soglasje za izvedbo, če v skladu z nacionalnim pravom učinkuje kot soglasje za izvedbo.
In accordance with Article 1(2) the agreement would therefore have to contain the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.
Sporazum bi torej moral v skladu s členom 1(2) vsebovati odločitev pristojnega organa ali organov, ki dovoljuje nosilcu projekta izvedbo projekta.
However, as the parties rightly agree, an agreement as such cannot be treated as equivalent to the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes or to other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape, as required by the definition of project under Article 1(2) of the EIA directive, nor are agreements referred to in Annexes I and II as projects.
Stranke pa pravilno sogla�ajo, da sporazuma kot takega ni mogoče enačiti niti z izvedbo gradbenih ali drugih instalacijskih del ali projektov ali z drugim posegom v naravno okolje in krajino, kot izhaja iz opredelitve projekta v členu 1(2) Direktive PVO, niti ni v Prilogah I in II označen kot projekt.
Whilst an agreement may relate to such projects, its conclusion is not a project.
Predmet sporazuma so lahko tak�ni projekti, njegova sklenitev pa nasprotno ni projekt.
According to Descamps and Others, TNT, SAB and Belgium, however, the agreement does not grant any right to build.
Descamps in drugi, TNT, SAB in Belgija pa menijo, da sporazum �e ne pomeni pravice gradnje.
The projects described required official consents, which is even expressly acknowledged in the agreement.
Za opisane projekte naj bi bila namreč potrebna izdaja oblastvenih soglasij za izvedbo. To naj bi sporazum celo izrecno priznaval.
The agreement as development consent
Sporazum kot soglasje za izvedbo
Nevertheless, some of the parties debate whether the agreement is the development
Nekateri udeleženci pa razpravljajo o tem, ali je sporazum soglasje za izvedbo projekta.
On the other hand, the Commission in particular points out a further possibility which may in principle lead to an agreement being regarded as development consent.
Zlasti Komisija nasprotno opozarja �e na eno možnost, ki načelno lahko pripelje do tega, da sporazum �teje za soglasje za izvedbo.
The Court has inferred from the scheme and the objectives of the EIA directive that a decision on development consent may involve several stages, which are capable in turn of giving rise to a requirement for an impact
Sodi�če je iz sistematike in ciljev Direktive PVO izpeljalo, da lahko odločitev o soglasju za izvedbo sestoji iz več stopenj, ki pa lahko sprožijo obveznost presoje vplivov
ABRAHAM AND OTHERS assessment.
ABRAHAM IN DRUGI na okolje.
13 The need for further consents does not therefore necessarily mean that an environmental impact assessment does not have to be carried out at an early stage, even possibly at the first stage.
13 Potrebnost nadaljnjih soglasij za izvedbo tako ne izključuje nujno, da je treba presojo vplivov na okolje opraviti že v zgodnji fazi, morda že na prvi stopnji.
14 As is clear from the first recital in the preamble to the EIA directive, the competent authority is to take account of the environmental effects of the project in question at the earliest possible stage in the decision-making process. 15
14 Kot izhaja iz prve uvodne izjave, je namreč namen Direktive PVO, da pristojni organ vplive zadevnih projektov na okolje upo�teva v najzgodnej�i mogoči fazi. 15
17However, Belgium explains in another context that the agreement is not a legal requirement for the planned works.
17 Belgija pa – v drugačni zvezi – prikazuje, da pravno gledano sporazum ni pogoj za načrtovana dela.
If that submission is correct, the agreement is not part of a consent pro- cedure carried out in several stages within the meaning of the previous case-law.
Če je ta trditev pravilna, potem sporazum ni del večstopenjskega postopka izdaje soglasja v smislu dosedanje sodne prakse.
The question therefore arises whether decision-making stages for which no provision is made in law can also form part of a consent procedure carried out in several stages.
Zato se zastavlja vpra�anje, ali se lahko večstopenjskemu postopku izdaje soglasja pripi�e tudi stopnje oblikovanja volje, ki niso pravno predvidene.
In accordance with this case-law, the EIA directive also covers acts which fall within the scope of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.
Direktiva PVO v skladu s to sodno prakso obsega tudi dejanja, ki spadajo na področje uporabe Direktive 2001/42/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. junija 2001 o presoji vplivov nekaterih načrtov in programov na okolje.
16The argument put forward by Belgium, SAB and TNT that the possible applicability of Directive 2001/42 ratione materiae precludes the application of the EIA directive to the agreement cannot therefore hold.
16Zato ni prepričljiv argument Belgije, SAB in TNT, da možnost uporabe Direktive 2001/42 ratione materiae pri sporazumu izključuje uporabo Direktive PVO.
Consequently, it must be examined whether the agreement is to be regarded as part of a consent procedure carried out in several stages.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali se lahko sporazum obravnava kot del večstopenjskega postopka izdaje soglasja.
The aim of environmental impact assessment is for the decision on a project to be taken with knowledge of its effects on the environment and on the basis of public participation.
Cilj presoje vplivov na okolje je, da se odločitev o projektu sprejme ob poznavanju njegovih vplivov na okolje in na podlagi sodelovanja javnosti.
Investigation of the environmental effects makes it possible, in accordance with the first recital in the preamble to the EIA directive and the precautionary principle under Article 174(2) of the Treaty, to prevent the creation of pollution or nuisances where possible, rather than subsequently trying to counteract them. The requirement of public participation implies
Presoja vplivov na okolje omogoča, da se v smislu prve uvodne izjave Direktive PVO in previdnostnega načela v skladu s členom 174(2) Pogodbe posku�a po
13 — Case C-290/03 Barker [2006] ECR I-3949, paragraph 45.14 — Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, paragraph 52.15 — Wells (cited in footnote 14), paragraph 51.16 — OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.
13 – Sodba z dne 4. maja 2006 v zadevi Barker (C-290/03, ZOdl., str.
17 — Wells (cited in footnote 14), paragraph 52.
14 – Sodba z dne 7. januarja 2004 v zadevi Wells (C-201/02, Recueil, str. I-723, točka 52).
18 clause 8(c) or 9 of the agreement — may also limit discretion.
Zahteva po sodelovanju javnosti vključuje, da lahko to sodelovanje �e vpliva na odločitev o projektu. 18
Although the EIA directive does make a formal link between the environmental impact assessment and the notion of development consent, it would not be able to achieve its aim if the decision on a project were de facto already taken before any formal consent procedure was initiated.
Direktiva PVO sicer presojo vplivov na okolje navidezno povezuje s pojmom soglasja za izvedbo, vendar pa njenega cilja ne bi bilo mogoče doseči, če bi bila odločitev o projektu dejansko že sprejeta, preden bi bil sploh uveden uradni postopek izdaje soglasja.
The question whether the agreement in that form restricts the decision of the competent authorities, as is claimed in particular by Abraham and Others and Beaujean and Others, is one of national law which the national courts with jurisdiction must examine.
Ali sporazum v taki obliki omejuje odločitev pristojnih organov, kot trdijo zlasti Abraham in drugi ter Beaujean in drugi, je vpra�anje nacionalnega prava, ki ga morajo preučiti pristojna nacionalna sodi�ča.
The agreement should therefore be regarded as the first stage of a consent pro- cedure carried out in several stages if and in so far as it limits the discretion of the competent national authorities in subsequent consent procedures.
Zato je treba sporazum �teti za prvo stopnjo večstopenjskega postopka izdaje soglasja, če in kolikor omejuje pravico pristojnih nacionalnih organov do proste presoje v kasnej�em postopku izdaje soglasja.
It cannot therefore only matter whether the discretion is formally unimpaired, as several of the parties claim.
V tem smislu ne more biti bistveno le to, ali pravica do proste presoje navidezno ostane nedotaknjena, kot trdi več udeležencev.
It is questionable whether an independent and impartial administrative decision taking full account of any environmental impact assessment and of public participation can be made if the bodies with political responsibility have decided clearly in favour of the project.
Nasprotno je lahko vpra�ljiva že neodvisna in nepristranska upravna odločitev, ki v celoti upo�teva morebitno presojo vplivov na okolje in sodelovanje javnosti, če so se politično odgovorni organi jasno odločili za projekt.
If the agreement does not impair the discretion of the authorities competent to grant consent, it may nevertheless have a function in the context of an environmental impact assessment which is at least intimated in the order for reference and is highlighted in the submissions made by Abraham and Others in particular.
Če sporazum ne vpliva na pravico do proste presoje pristojnih organov za izdajo soglasja za izvedbo, ima lahko kljub temu v okviru presoje vplivov na okolje določeno vlogo, na katero predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe vsaj nakazuje in ki jo zlasti poudarjajo Abraham in drugi v svojih trditvah.
According to the referring court, the carrying out of a series of works is involved, entailing largescale modifications to the structure of an airport, the runway of which is longer than 2 100 metres. 19
Pred predložitvenim sodi�čem gre namreč za vpra�anje izvedbe skupka instalacijskih del ali projektov, ki spreminja pomembne objekte letali�ča z vzletno stezo z dolžino več kot 2100 m. 19
19 — See p. 154 of the order for reference.
19 – Glej stran 154 predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
ABRAHAM AND OTHERS due consideration given to the cumulative effects of the subprojects in the context of the overall project.
Nasprotno je treba pri vsaki odločitvi obravnavati kumulativne vplive delnih projektov v okviru skupnega projekta in jih ustrezno upo�tevati.
The question of taking a series of individual projects as a whole is therefore of interest because the individual works which were agreed apparently did not separately reach the threshold which would have made an environmental impact assessment necessary.
Vpra�anje skupka posameznih projektov je zanimivo zato, ker posamezni dogovorjeni ukrepi očitno vsakič sami zase niso dosegli praga, ki bi bil potreben za obvezno presojo vplivov na okolje.
Nevertheless, the individuals who live near the airport argue that, taken together, those works have significant (detrimental) effects on the environment.
Stanovalci, ki živijo v bližini letali�ča, kljub temu trdijo, da imajo ti ukrepi, skupno gledano, pomembne (�kodljive) vplive na okolje.
Lastly it must be pointed out that if an environmental impact assessment were required, it would not necessarily have to relate expressly to the agreement or the subprojects.
Na koncu je treba opozoriti na to, da ni nujno, da bi se presoja vplivov na okolje, če je potrebna, izrecno navezovala na sporazum ali na delne projekte.
It cannot be ruled out that the effects on the environment of an increase in air traffic, including the use of Liège-Bierset Airport at night, had already been adequately assessed in other procedures.
Ni izključeno, da so bili vplivi povečanega letalskega prometa na okolje, vključno z nočno uporabo letali�ča Liège-Bierset, že v zadostni meri presojani v okviru drugih postopkov.
The parties and the lower court mention various planning decisions and programmes in this regard.
Udeleženci in prej�nje instance v tej zvezi omenjajo različne odločitve o načrtovanju in programe.
If these were based on an adequate study of the effects on the environment with public participation, no new assessment would have been required later. 21
Če ti temeljijo na zadostni preiskavi vplivov na okolje ob sodelovanju javnosti, kasnej�a ponovna presoja ni bila potrebna. 21
The Court has already stated that it would not be compatible with the EIA directive to consider several similar projects or different sections of a track in isolation only, without taking into account their cumulative effect.
Sodi�če je že ugotovilo, da ne bi bilo združljivo z Direktivo PVO, če bi se več istovrstnih projektov ali različnih delov ene proge obravnavalo le vsakega zase, ne da bi se upo�tevalo njihov kumulativni vpliv.
20 This is consistent with Article 5(1) and point 4 of Annex III, which require a description of cumulative effects on the environment.
20To ustreza členu 5(1) in Prilogi III, točka 4, ki zahtevata opis kumulativnih vplivov na okolje.
Those cumulative effects are, under Article 8, to be taken into consideration in the decision on the project.
Te kumulativne vplive je treba v skladu s členom 8 upo�tevati pri odločitvi o projektu.
In summary, it must be held with regard to the first question that an agreement
Skupno je glede prvega vpra�anja treba ugotoviti, da sporazum med državo in zasebnim podjetjem, ki je bil podpisan, da bi to podjetje začelo delati na območju letali�ča z vzletno stezo, dalj�o od 2100 m, ki vsebuje natančen opis infrastrukturnih del, ki naj bi
The present case involves several different subprojects which are, however, linked together as an overall project by the agreement with the aim of enabling Liège-Bierset Airport to be used for certain forms of freight traffic.
V obravnavanem primeru gre sicer za več različnih delnih projektov, ki pa so s sporazumom povezani v skupni projekt s ciljem, da se omogoči uporabo letali�ča Liège-Bierset za določene oblike tovornega prometa.
20 — Commission v Ireland (cited in footnote 3), paragraph 76, and Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 53.
20 – V opombi 3 navedena sodba Komisija proti Irski, točka 76, in v opombi 6 navedena sodba Komisija proti Španiji, točka 53.
21 — See Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany (Großkrotzenburg) [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraph 41 et seq., and Commission v Spain (cited in footnote 6), paragraph 56.
21 – Glej sodbo z dne 11. avgusta 1995 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (Großkrotzenburg) (C-431/92, Recueil, str. I-2189, točka 41 in naslednje) ter v opombi 6 navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Španiji, točka 56.