natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In support of the third plea in law, the Commission reports a number of examples which, in its opinion, illustrate the deficiencies in the application of the system of enforcement.
V utemeljitev zadnjega tožbenega razloga Komisija navaja določeno �tevilo primerov, ki po njenem mnenju kažejo pomanjkljivosti pri izvr�evanju sistema sankcij.
The first two pleas in law
Prvi in drugi tožbeni razlog
The Commission claims that since it is possible, under the national legislation, to comply with the obligations imposed by Directive 85/337 as amended during or after execution of a development, there is no clear obligation to subject developments to an assessment of their effects on the environment before they are carried out.
Komisija uveljavlja, da to, da je v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo mogoče izpolniti obveznosti iz spremenjene Direktive 85/337 med izvajanjem projekta ali po njegovi izvedbi, pomeni, da ni določena jasna obveznost, da je treba v zvezi s projekti opraviti presojo njihovih vplivov na okolje pred njihovo izvedbo.
In accepting that projects can be scrutinised, in an environmental impact assessment, after their execution, when the principal objective pursued by Directive 85/337 as amended is that effects on the environment should be taken into account at the earliest possible stage in all planning and decisionmaking processes, the national
S tem da se lahko nadzor projektov v okviru presoje vplivov na okolje opravi po njihovi izvedbi, čeprav je glavni cilj spremenjene Direktive 85/337, da se vplivi na okolje upo�tevajo v najzgodnej�i možni fazi v vseh postopkih načrtovanja in
2008 — CASE C-215/06 legislation in question recognises a possibility of regularisation which results in the undermining of that directive’s effectiveness.
2008 – ZADEVA C-215/06 sprejemanja odločitev, je v sporni nacionalni zakonodaji priznana možnost legalizacije, ki zmanj�uje polni učinek te direktive.
The Commission adds that the rules relating to retention permission are incorporated within the general provisions applicable to normal planning permission, and that there is nothing to indicate that applications for retention permission and the grant of such permission are limited to exceptional cases.
Komisija dodaja, da so pravila o legalizaciji vključena v splo�ne določbe, ki veljajo za običajno dovoljenje na področju urbanizma, in da ni razvidno, da so zahteve za legalizacijo in njihove odobritve omejene na izjemne primere.
Ireland contends that the Commission’s analysis of the Irish legislation which transposes Directive 85/337 as amended is not accurate.
Irska uveljavlja, da presoja Komisije o irski zakonodaji, s katero je bila prenesena spremenjena Direktiva 85/337, ni pravilna.
Ireland states that Irish law expressly requires that permission be obtained for any new development before the commencement of works and that, as regards development which must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, the assessment must be carried out before the works.
Tako pojasnjuje, da se v irskem pravu izrecno zahteva, da se za vsak nov projekt pridobi dovoljenje pred začetkom del in da je pri projektih, za katere je treba opraviti presojo vplivov na okolje, to treba izvesti pred deli.
Failure to comply with those obligations is, moreover, a criminal offence and may result in enforcement action.
Neizpolnitev teh obveznosti je poleg tega kaznivo ravnanje in lahko vodi do uporabe prisilnih ukrepov.
Ireland contends, in addition, that retention permission, established by the PDA and the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, is an exception to the general rule which requires permission to be obtained before the commencement of a development, and best meets the objectives of Directive 85/337 as amended, in particular the general objective of protection of the environment, since the removal of an un authorised development may not be the most appropriate measure to achieve that protection.
Irska poleg tega poudarja, da je odobritev legalizacije, ki je uvedena s PDA in predpisi o prostorskem načrtovanju in razvoju iz leta 2001, izjema od splo�nega pravila, na podlagi katerega je treba pridobiti soglasje za izvedbo pred začetkom projekta, in da najbolje ustreza ciljem spremenjene Direktive 85/337, zlasti splo�nemu cilju varstva okolja, ker odstranitev projekta, za katerega ni bilo izdano soglasje, ni vedno najprimernej�i ukrep za navedeno varstvo.
According to that Member State, the requirements of Directive 85/337 as amended are wholly procedural and are silent as to whether there may or may not be an exception by virtue of which an environmental impact assessment might, in certain cases, be carried out after commencement of works.
Po mnenju te države članice v spremenjeni Direktivi 85/337, katere zahteve se nana�ajo le na postopek, ni navedeno, ali obstaja izjema, na podlagi katere bi se lahko v določenih primerih izvedla presoja vplivov na okolje po začetku del.
Ireland adds that nowhere in the directive is it expressly stated that an assessment can solely be carried out before the execution of a project, and refers to the definition of the term ‘development consent’ given by Directive 85/337 as amended to argue that the use of ‘proceed’ is significant,
V zvezi s tem poudarja, da ni nikjer v tej direktivi izrecno navedeno, da se lahko presoja izvede le pred začetkom projekta, in s sklicevanjem na opredelitev pojma „soglasje za izvedbo“ iz navedene direktive uveljavlja, da je izraz „izvedba“ pomemben, ker se ne omejuje
COMMISSION v IRELAND that term not being confined to the commencement of works but also applying to the continuation of a development project.
KOMISIJA PROTI IRSKI le na začetek del, ampak se nana�a tudi na nadaljevanje projekta prostorskega načrtovanja.
Ireland contends, in addition, that retention permission is a reasonable fall-back mechanism to be resorted to in exceptional circumstances, designed to take account of the fact that some projects will inevitably, for various reasons, commence before the grant of development consent within the meaning of Directive 85/337 as amended.
Irska poleg tega poudarja, da je odobritev legalizacije razumen sistem odpravljanja napak, ki se ga lahko uporabi v izjemnih primerih in s katerim se sku�a upo�tevati dejstvo, da se je nemogoče izogniti temu, da se nekateri projekti iz različnih razlogov začnejo izvajati pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo v smislu spremenjene Direktive 85/337.
On that point, Ireland relies on Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723 to argue that a remedial assessment may be carried out at a later stage, by way of exception to the general rule that the assessment must be carried out at the earliest possible stage in the decisionmaking process.
V zvezi s tem Irska s sklicevanjem na sodbo z dne 7. januarja 2004 v zadevi Wells (C-201/02, Recueil, str. I-723) poudarja, da se lahko naknadna presoja izvede v poznej�i fazi kot izjema od splo�nega načela, na podlagi katerega je treba izvesti presojo čim prej v postopku sprejemanja odločitev.
That Member State considers also that it would be disproportionate to order the removal of some structures in circumstances where, after consideration of an application for retention permission, retention is held to be compatible with proper planning and sustainable development.
Ta država članica tudi meni, da ne bi bilo sorazmerno zahtevati odstranitve nekaterih objektov, kadar bi se po preučitvi zahteve za legalizacijo presodilo, da bi bila združljiva s pravilnim prostorskim načrtovanjem in trajnostnim razvojem.
Member States must implement Directive 85/337 as amended in a manner which fully corresponds to its requirements, having regard to its fundamental objective which, as is clear from Article 2(1), is that, before development 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 a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects (see, to that effect, Case
Države članice morajo spremenjeno Direktivo 85/337 prenesti popolnoma v skladu z zahtevami, ki jih določa ob upo�tevanju njenega bistvenega cilja, ki je, kot to izhaja iz člena 2(1), da se pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo za projekte, ki bodo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, izpelje postopek v zvezi z zahtevo za soglasje in presodi njihove vplive (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 19. septembra 2000 v zadevi Linster, C-287/98, Recueil,
2008 — CASE C-215/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-215/06 str. I-6917, točka 52, in z dne 23. novembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-486/04, ZOdl., str.
Further, development consent, under Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 as amended, is the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.
Poleg tega je soglasje za izvedbo v skladu s členom 1(2) spremenjene Direktive 85/337 odločitev pristojnega organa ali organov, ki dovoljujejo nosilcu projekta njegovo izvedbo.
Given that this wording regarding the acquisition of entitlement is entirely unambiguous, Article 2(1) of that directive must necessarily be understood as meaning that, unless the applicant has applied for and obtained the required development consent and has first carried out the environmental impact assessment when it is required, he cannot commence the works relating to the project in question, if the requirements of the directive are not to be disregarded.
Ker je izraz v zvezi z dovolitvijo nedvoumen, je treba člen 2(1) navedene direktive nujno razumeti tako, da pomeni, da oseba ne more začeti del v zvezi z zadevnim projektom, če ni zahtevala in pridobila potrebnega soglasja ter predhodno izvedla presoje vplivov na okolje, ko se ta zahteva, ker sicer ne bi spo�tovala zahtev spremenjene Direktive 85/337.
That analysis is valid for all projects within the scope of Directive 85/337 as amended, whether they fall under Annex I and must therefore systematically be subject to an assessment pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 4(1), or whether they fall under Annex II and, as such, and in accordance with Article 4(2), are subject to an impact assessment only if, in the light of thresholds or criteria set by the Member State and/or on the basis of a case-by-case examination, they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.
Ta presoja velja za vse projekte, ki spadajo na področje uporabe spremenjene Direktive 85/337, tako za tiste, ki so navedeni v prilogi I k tej direktivi in za katere se vedno izvede presoja na podlagi členov 2(1) in 4(1) te direktive, kot tudi za tiste, ki so navedeni v prilogi II k navedeni direktivi in za katere se na tej podlagi in v skladu s členom 4(2) te direktive izvede presoja vplivov le, če se zanje glede na pragove in merila, ki jih postavi država članica, in/ali na podlagi preverjanja za vsak primer posebej predvideva, da bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
A literal analysis of that kind of Article 2(1) is moreover consonant with the object- ive pursued by Directive 85/337 as amended, set out in particular in recital 5 of the preamble to Directive 97/11, according to which ‘projects for which an assessment is required should be subject to a requirement for development consent the assessment should be carried out before such consent is granted’.
Taka jezikovna preučitev navedenega člena 2(1) ustreza poleg tega cilju spremenjene Direktive 85/337, na katerega je opozorjeno zlasti v uvodni izjavi 5 Direktive 97/11, v skladu s katero „bi morali biti projekti, za katere se zahteva presoja, predmet zahteve po pridobitvi soglasja za izvedbo [in bi bilo] treba presojo opraviti, preden je izdano tako soglasje“.
As the Irish legislation stands, it is undisputed that environmental impact assessments and planning permissions must, as a general rule, be respectively carried out and obtained, when required, prior to the execution of works.
V zvezi z irsko zakonodajo ni sporno, da je načeloma treba izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje in pridobiti dovoljenja za prostorsko načrtovanje, ko je to potrebno, pred izvedbo del. Nespo�tovanje teh obveznosti je v irskem pravu kr�itev pravil na področju urbanizma.
However, it is also undisputed that the Irish legislation establishes retention permission and equates its effects to those of the ordinary planning permission which precedes the carrying out of works and development.
Vendar pa tudi ni sporno, da je z navedeno zakonodajo uvedena odobritev legalizacije, katere učinki so izenačeni z učinki običajnega dovoljenja za prostorsko načrtovanje, ki je predhodno izvedbi del in prostorskemu načrtovanju.
The former can be granted even though the project to which it relates and for which an environmental impact assessment is required pursuant to Articles 2 and 4 of Directive 85/337 as amended has been executed.
Legalizacija se lahko izvede, čeprav je bil projekt, ki je njen predmet in za katerega se zahteva presoja vplivov na okolje v skladu s členoma 2 in 4 spremenjene Direktive 85/337, izveden.
In addition, the grant of such a retention permission, use of which Ireland recognises to be common in planning matters lacking any exceptional circumstances, has the result, under Irish law, that the obligations imposed by Directive 85/337 as amended are considered to have in fact been satisfied.
Poleg tega odobritev legalizacije, za uporabo katere Irska priznava, da je na področju prostorskega načrtovanja raz�irjena v okoli�činah, ki niso izjemne, v irskem pravu pomeni, da so bile obveznosti iz spremenjene Direktive 85/337 dejansko izpolnjene.
While Community law cannot preclude the applicable national rules from allowing, in certain cases, the regularisation of operations or measures which are unlawful in the light of Community law, such a possibility should be subject to the conditions that it does not offer the persons concerned the opportunity to circumvent the Community rules or to dispense with applying them, and that it should remain the exception.
Če pravo Skupnosti ne more preprečiti, da je z veljavnimi nacionalnimi pravili v nekaterih primerih dovoljeno legalizirati ravnanja in akte, s katerimi se kr�ijo ta pravila, mora za tako možnost veljati pogoj, da je zadevnim osebam onemogočeno, da bi ob�le pravila Skupnosti ali jih ne bi uporabile, in da mora ta možnost ostati izjemna.
A system of regularisation, such as that in force in Ireland, may have the effect of encouraging developers to forgo ascertaining whether intended projects satisfy the criteria of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 as amended, and consequently, not to undertake the action required for identification of the effects of those projects on the environment and for their prior assessment.
Tak sistem legalizacije, kot velja na Irskem, ima lahko namreč tak učinek, da spodbuja nosilce projektov, da ne preverijo, ali predlagani projekti izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(1) spremenjene Direktive 85/337, in da torej ne začnejo postopkov, ki so potrebni za opredelitev vplivov navedenih projektov na okolje in za njihovo predhodno presojo.
The first recital of the preamble to Directive 85/337 however states that it is necessary for the competent authority to take effects on the environment into account at the earliest possible stage in all the technical planning and decisionmaking processes, the objective being to prevent the creation of pollution or nuisances at source rather than subsequently trying to counteract their effects.
V skladu s prvo uvodno izjavo spremenjene Direktive 85/337 pa je nujno, da v postopku sprejemanja odločitev pristojni organ upo�teva vplive na okolje v najzgodnej�i možni fazi v vseh postopkih tehničnega načrtovanja in sprejemanja odločitev, ker je cilj preprečevati povzročanje onesnaževanja ali motenj pri izvoru, ne pa posku�ati naknadno zmanj�ati njihove vplive.
Lastly, Ireland cannot usefully rely on Wells.
Nazadnje, Irska se ne more učinkovito sklicevati na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Wells.
Paragraphs 64 and 65 of that judgment point out that, under the principle of cooperation in good faith laid down in Article 10 EC, Member States are required to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of Community law.
V navedeni sodbi je namreč v točkah 64 in 65 opozorjeno, da morajo države članice na podlagi načela lojalnega sodelovanja, določenega v členu 10 ES, odpraviti nezakonite posledice kr�itve prava Skupnosti.
The competent authorities are therefore obliged to take the measures necessary to remedy failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment, for example the revocation or suspension of a consent already granted in
Pristojni organi morajo tako sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, da nadomestijo opustitev presoje vplivov na okolje, tako da na primer prekli-
2008 — CASE C-215/06 order to carry out such an assessment, subject to the limits resulting from the pro -cedural autonomy of the Member States.
2008 – ZADEVA C-215/06 čejo že izdano soglasje za izvedbo ali zadržijo njegovo izvajanje, da se opravi taka presoja, vse v mejah procesne avtonomije držav članic.
This cannot be taken to mean that a remedial environmental impact assessment, undertaken to remedy the failure to carry out an assessment as provided for and arranged by Directive 85/337 as amended, since the project has already been carried out, is equivalent to an environmental impact assessment preceding issue of the development consent, as required by and governed by that directive.
Iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da je naknadna presoja vplivov na okolje, ki se izvede, da bi se nadomestila opustitev take presoje, kot je predvidena in določena s spremenjeno Direktivo 85/337, ker je projekt že izveden, izenačena s presojo vplivov na okolje, ki je predhodna izdaji soglasja za izvedbo, ki je zahtevana in urejena z navedeno direktivo.
It follows from the foregoing that, by giving to retention permission, which can be issued even where no exceptional circumstances are proved, the same effects as those attached to a planning permission preceding the carrying out of works and development, when, pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 4(1) and (2) of Directive 85/337 as amended, projects for which an environmental impact assessment is required must be identified and then — before the grant of development consent and, therefore, necessarily before they are carried out — must be subject to an application for development consent and to such an assessment, Ireland has failed to comply with the requirements of that directive.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da Irska z določitvijo istih učinkov za legalizacijo, ki se jo lahko odobri, tudi če se ne dokaže izjemnih okoli�čin, kot so učinki dovoljenja za prostorsko načrtovanje, ki je predhodno izvedbi del in prostorskemu načrtovanju, čeprav je treba projekte, za katere se zahteva presoja vplivov na okolje, na podlagi členov 2(1) ter 4(1) in (2) spremenjene Direktive 85/337 opredeliti in nato v zvezi z njimi pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo, in torej nujno pred njihovo izvedbo, zahtevati soglasje za izvedbo in opraviti navedeno presojo, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz te direktive.
Consequently, the first two pleas in law are well founded.
Prvi in drugi tožbeni razlog sta torej utemeljena.
The third plea in law
Tretji tožbeni razlog
According to the Commission, there are shortcomings in the Irish legislation relating to enforcement measures and in the resulting enforcement practices which
Po mnenju Komisije sta irska zakonodaja in praksa, ki iz nje sledi, na področju prisilnih ukrepov pomanjkljivi, kar ogroža pravilen prenos in uporabo spreme-
COMMISSION v IRELAND undermine the proper transposition and implementation of Directive 85/337 as amended, when, under that directive, an effective system of control and enforcement is mandatory.
KOMISIJA PROTI IRSKI njene Direktive 85/337, čeprav je v skladu z njo učinkovit sistem nadzora in sankcij obvezen.
First, the Commission claims that the enforcement measures provided for by Irish planning legislation do not offset the absence of provisions requiring compliance with the obligations as to an environmental impact assessment before development is carried out.
Prvič, Komisija uveljavlja, da prisilni ukrepi, predvideni v irski zakonodaji na področju urbanizma, ne nadome�čajo neobstoja določb, na podlagi katerih bi bilo treba obvezno spo�tovati zahteve v zvezi s presojo vplivov na okolje pred izvedbo projektov.
Secondly, the Commission claims that enforcement practices undermine the proper transposition of Directive 85/337 as amended.
Drugič, Komisija uveljavlja, da praksa na področju prisilnih ukrepov ogroža pravilen prenos spremenjene Direktive 85/337.
The Commission refers to specific situations which illustrate, in its opinion, the deficiencies of the Irish legislation regarding supervising compliance with the rules established by that directive.
Komisija tako navaja posebne primere, ki po njenem mnenju kažejo pomanjkljivosti irske zakonodaje na področju nadzora spo�tovanja pravil, določenih s to direktivo.
As regards the procedure relating to enforcement, Ireland contends the choice and form of enforcement is a matter within the discretion of Member States, in particular as there has been no harmonisation at Community level of planning and environmental controls.
V zvezi s postopkom na področju sankcij Irska meni, da vpra�anje izbire sankcij in njihove oblike spada v prosto presojo držav članic, zlasti ker nadzor v zvezi s prostorskim načrtovanjem in okoljem ni bil usklajen na ravni Skupnosti.
In any event, Ireland states that the system of enforcement established by the Irish legislation is comprehensive and effective.
V vsakem primeru Irska poudarja, da je sistem sankcij, predviden v irski zakonodaji, popoln in učinkovit.
The Member State adds that, under en -vironmental law, the applicable provisions are legally binding.
V zvezi s tem ta država članica pojasnjuje, da so v pravu okolja veljavne določbe zakonsko zavezujoče.
Thus, the legislation places planning authorities under the obligation of sending a warning letter when they learn that an unauthorised development is being carried out, unless they consider that the development is of minor importance.
Tako je v tej zakonodaji določeno, da mora organ, pristojen za prostorsko načrtovanje, če izve, da se izvaja projekt brez soglasja za izvedbo, poslati obvestilo z opozorilom, razen če meni, da je pomembnost tega projekta majhna.
Once the warning letter has been sent, the planning authorities must decide whether it is appropriate to issue an enforcement notice.
Ko je obvestilo z opozorilom poslano, morajo organi, pristojni za urbanizem, presoditi, ali je treba izdati opomin.
The warning letter is intended to enable the persons responsible for unauthorised developments to undertake remedial action before the enforcement notice and the other stages of enforcement proceedings.
Namen obvestila z opozorilom je omogočiti osebam, ki so odgovorne za projekte brez soglasij za izvedbo, da odpravijo napake pred izdajo opomina in pred drugimi fazami postopka v zvezi s sankcijami.
If an enforcement notice is issued, that sets out obligations and failure to comply with its requirements constitutes an offence.
Če je izdan opomin, so v njem določene obveznosti in neupo�tevanje postavljenih zahtev pomeni prekr�ek.
Ireland adds that the enforcement regime must take account of various competing rights held by developers, landowners, the public and individuals directly affected by the development, and the weight of those various rights must be measured in order to reach a fair result.
Irska dodaja, da je treba v sistemu sankcij upo�tevati različne pravice, med katerimi so pravice nosilcev projektov, lastnikov zemlji�č, javnosti in posameznikov, ki jih navedeni projekt neposredno zadeva, in da je treba vse te različne pravice uravnotežiti, da se doseže pravičen rezultat.
Lastly, Ireland does not accept that the examples reported by the Commission prove the alleged failure to fulfil its obligations, since the Commission limits itself to general assertions.
Irska nazadnje izpodbija primere, ki jih navaja Komisija, ker naj ne bi dokazovali zatrjevane neizpolnitve obveznosti, saj naj bi se Komisija omejila le na splo�ne trditve.