natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Does Article 1 of the Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996 constitute due transposition into national law of Article 4 of Directive [85/337] and Annex III thereto by the Italian legislature, given that it does not provide, as a criterion for making projects in the classes listed in Annex II to the Directive subject to an environmental impact assessment, for the criterion of cumulation with other projects, as referred to in Annex III to the Directive?’
Ali člen 1 [odloka predsednika republike] z dne 12. aprila 1996 pomeni pravilen prenos italijanskega zakonodajalca člena 4 Direktive [85/337] in njene priloge III, ki kot merila za zavezanost presoji vplivov na okolje za projekte [iz] priloge II k tej direktivi ni določil merila kumulacije projekta z drugimi projekti, kakor je določeno v [navedeni] prilogi III?“
Under Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, inter alia, where the answer to a question referred may be clearly deduced from its existing caselaw or where the answer to that question leaves no scope for any reasonable doubt, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate General, give its decision by reasoned order.
Sodi�če lahko v skladu s členom 104(3) svojega poslovnika po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca odloči z obrazloženim sklepom, zlasti če je iz obstoječe sodne prakse mogoče jasno sklepati, kak�en bo odgovor na postavljeno vpra�anje, ali če odgovor na tako vpra�anje ne dopu�ča utemeljenega dvoma.
The Comune di Milano (Municipality of Milan) submits that the questions raised by the Consiglio di Stato are inadmissible because the two projects for the construction of roads to which the latter refers in the order for reference are distinct projects and are not, moreover, such as to have a cumulative impact on the environment.
Comune di Milano meni, da so vpra�anja, ki jih je postavilo Consiglio di Stato, nedopustna, ker sta projekta gradnje cest, na katera se Consiglio di Stato sklicuje v predložitveni odločbi, dva različna projekta in poleg tega ne moreta imeti kumulativnega učinka na okolje.
In accordance with settled caselaw, in the context of the cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court, before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v okviru sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, vzpostavljenega s členom 234 ES, le nacionalno sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za poznej�o sodno odločitev, pristojno, da glede na posebnosti zadeve presodi potrebo po predhodni odločbi, ki mu bo omogočila izreči sodbo, in tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih postavi Sodi�ču.
Consequently, where the questions submitted for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 Agorà and Excelsior [2001] ECR I-3605, paragraph 18).
Zato – če se postavljena vpra�anja nana�ajo na razlago prava Skupnosti – je Sodi�če načelno dolžno odločati (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 10. maja 2001 v združenih zadevah Agorà in Excelsior, C-223/99 in C-260/99, Recueil, str. I-3605, točka 18).
In the present case, the referring court has clearly stated that it requires the interpretation of several of the provisions of Directive 85/337 in order to ascertain whether
V obravnavanem primeru je predložitveno sodi�če jasno navedlo, da nujno potrebuje razlago več določb Direktive 85/337, da bi določilo, ali bi moral biti projekt
2008 — CASE C-156/07 the road construction project at issue in the main proceedings should be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
2008 – ZADEVA C-156/07 gradnje ceste, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, zavezan presoji vplivov na okolje.
In addition, the Court may not decline to give a ruling on a question referred to it by a national court unless it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law sought by that court bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see, inter alia, Agorà and Excelsior, paragraph 20).
Poleg tega se odločanje o vpra�anju za predhodno odločanje, ki ga je postavilo nacionalno sodi�če, lahko zavrne le, če je očitno, da razlaga prava Skupnosti, ki jo je zahtevalo slednje, nima nobene zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora v postopku v glavni stvari, če je problem hipotetičen ali če Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na postavljena vpra�anja (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Agorà in Excelsior, točka 20).
In the present case, none of those conditions are met.
V obravnavanem primeru ni izpolnjen nobeden od teh pogojev.
Accordingly, the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible.
Iz tega sledi, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
Taking the view that the answer to the three questions referred leaves no scope for any reasonable doubt, the Court, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, informed the referring court that it proposed to give its decision by reasoned order and called on the interested parties referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice to submit any observations they might have in that regard.
Ker je Sodi�če menilo, da odgovor na postavljena tri vpra�anja ne dopu�ča utemeljenega dvoma, je v skladu s členom 104(3), drugi pododstavek, svojega poslovnika obvestilo predložitveno sodi�če, da namerava odločiti z obrazloženim sklepom, in pozvalo udeležence iz člena 23 Statuta Sodi�ča, naj predložijo morebitne pripombe v zvezi s tem.
Aeillo and Others and the Commission of the European Communities replied to the Court’s request.
Aiello in drugi ter Komisija Evropskih skupnosti so se odzvali na poziv Sodi�ča.
The Commission in its reply stated that it had no objection to
Komisija je v svojem odgovoru navedla, da ne ugovarja temu, da Sodi�če odloči
AIELLO AND OTHERS the Court giving its decision by way of reasoned order.
AIELLO IN DRUGI z obrazloženim sklepom.
Aiello and Others submitted arguments similar to those raised in their written observations and requested that a hearing be held. However, those factors have not persuaded the Court to depart from the procedural approach envisaged.
Aiello in drugi so navedli podobne trditve kot v svojih pisnih stali�čih in predlagali, naj se določi obravnava.Vendar ti elementi Sodi�ču ne zadostujejo, da bi se odpovedalo predvideni postopkovni poti.
— The first question
– Prvo vpra�anje
By its first question, the referring court is essentially asking whether Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, but which are not referred to in Annexes I and II to that directive, must nevertheless be subject to an environmental impact assessment which complies with the assessment set out in that directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 2(1) Direktive 85/337 razlagati tako, da je treba projekte, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje, vendar niso navedeni v prilogah I in II k tej direktivi, kljub temu zavezati presoji njihovih vplivov na okolje v skladu s presojo, določeno v navedeni direktivi.
Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 provides that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location and which must, therefore, be subject to an assessment with regard to those effects, are defined in Article 4 of that directive.
V členu 2(1) Direktive 85/337 je določeno, da so projekti, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, in ki morajo zato biti zavezani presoji v zvezi s temi vplivi, opredeljeni v členu 4 te direktive.
Article 4 provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that the projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an environmental impact assessment and, in paragraph 2 thereof, that, with regard to projects listed in Annex II to that directive, it is for the Member States to determine whether they should be subject to such an assessment on the basis of certain thresholds or certain criteria.
V odstavku 1 navedenega člena 4 je določeno, da morajo biti projekti iz priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 zavezani presoji vplivov na okolje, in v odstavku 2, da morajo za projekte iz priloge II k tej direktivi države članice določiti na podlagi nekaterih pragov ali nekaterih meril, ali jih je treba zavezati taki presoji.
It must also be noted that that article renders both situations referred to in the preceding paragraph subject to the application of Article 2(3) of Directive 85/337,
Opozoriti je tudi treba, da je v tem členu za primera, navedena v prej�nji točki, določeno upo�tevanje uporabe člena 2(3) Direktive 85/337, ki državam članicam dovoljuje, da se za določen projekt izjemoma v celoti ali delno ne zahteva presoja
Furthermore, Article 1 of Directive 85/337 provides, in paragraph 4 thereof, that the directive does not cover projects serving national defence purposes and, in paragraph 5 thereof, that it does not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of that directive are deemed to be achieved through the legislative process.
Poleg tega je v odstavku 4 člena 1 Direktive 85/337 določeno, da ta direktiva ne vključuje projektov za namene državne obrambe, in v odstavku 5, da se ne uporablja za projekte, katerih podrobnosti so sprejete s posebnim zakonom nacionalne zakonodaje, ker se cilji te direktive �tejejo za dosežene z zakonodajnim postopkom.
Consequently, having regard to paragraphs 29 to 32 of this order, the answer to the first question referred must be that Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as not requiring that any project likely to have a significant effect on the environment be made subject to the environmental impact assessment provided for in that directive, but only those referred to in Annexes I and II to that directive, under the conditions set out in Article 4 thereof and subject to Articles 1(4) and (5) and 2(3) thereof.
Zato je treba glede na točke od 29 do 32 tega sklepa na prvo postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 2(1) Direktive 85/337 razlagati tako, da ne zahteva, da se vsak projekt, ki bi lahko pomembno vplival na okolje, podvrže postopku presoje, določenem v tej direktivi, ampak da morajo biti temu postopku podvrženi samo projekti, ki so navedeni v prilogah I in II k navedeni direktivi, pod pogoji, določenimi v členu 4 te direktive, ter ob upo�tevanju členov 1(4) in (5) ter 2(3) iste direktive.
By its second question, the referring court essentially asks whether Member States are required to take account of the selection criteria listed in Annex III to Direct- ive 85/337 when they determine, pursuant to Article 4(2) of that directive, in respect
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali so izbirna merila iz priloge III k Direktivi 85/337 obvezna za države članice, kadar te na podlagi
AIELLO AND OTHERS of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II thereto and on the basis of case-by-case assessments, or thresholds or criteria fixed by the Member State, whether those projects must be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure.
AIELLO IN DRUGI člena 4(2) te direktive za projekte iz priloge II k tej direktivi določijo na podlagi preverjanja za vsak primer posebej ali na podlagi pragov ali meril, ki jih postavijo, ali je treba te projekte zavezati postopku presoje vplivov na okolje.
In this connection, the Court has already held that, although Member States may establish the criteria and/or thresholds necessary to determine which of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337, in its original version, are to be subject to an assessment, their discretion is limited by the obligation, set out in Article 2(1) of that directive, to subject projects likely to have significant effects on the environment, particularly by virtue of their nature, size or location, to an assessment with regard to their impact (see, inter alia, Case C-486/04 Commission v Italy [2006] ECR I-11025, paragraph 53).
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če že odločilo, da čeprav imajo države članice možnost, da določijo merila in/ali pragove, ki omogočajo določitev, kateri projekti iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337 v prvotni različici morajo biti predmet take presoje, je njihova diskrecijska pravica omejena z obveznostjo, določeno v členu 2(1) navedene direktive, da presoji vplivov zavežejo projekte, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje, zlasti zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 23. novembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-486/04, ZOdl., str. I-11025, točka 53).
Under Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, it is for the Member States to determine themselves in which cases the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to that dir -ective must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, whereas the projects in Annex I thereto must always be subject to such a procedure.
Na podlagi člena 4(2) Direktive 85/337 so države članice pristojne, da same določijo, v katerih primerih morajo biti projekti, navedeni v prilogi II k tej direktivi, zavezani presoji vplivov na okolje, medtem ko morajo biti projekti iz priloge I k tej direktivi vedno predmet takega postopka.
It stems from the actual wording of Article 4(3) of Directive 85/337 that that Dir ective requires Member States, in both cases, to take into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III to that directive, that is to say, those of the criteria which must be applied in the light of the characteristics of the project concerned.
Iz samega člena 4(3) Direktive 85/337 izhaja, da ta v enem in drugem primeru državam članicam nalaga obveznost, da upo�tevajo ustrezna izbirna merila, opredeljena v prilogi III k tej direktivi, to je tista od teh meril, ki jih je ob upo�tevanju značilnosti zadevnega projekta treba uporabiti.
Therefore, the answer to the second question referred is that Directive 85/337 does require the Member States to take account of the relevant selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 85/337 when they determine, in respect of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II thereto, either on the basis of case-by-case assessments, or on the basis of thresholds or criteria fixed by the Member State, whether the projects concerned must be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure.
Zato je treba na drugo postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da so ustrezna izbirna merila, navedena v prilogi III k Direktivi 85/337, obvezna za države članice, kadar za projekte iz priloge II k tej direktivi bodisi na podlagi preverjanja za vsak primer posebej bodisi na podlagi pragov ali meril, ki jih postavijo, določijo, ali mora biti zadevni projekt zavezan postopku presoje vplivov na okolje.
By its third question, the referring court is essentially requesting the Court to specify whether the Italian legislation at issue in the main proceedings constitutes due transposition into national law of Article 4 of Directive 85/337, given that that secondary legislation does not set out the criterion of cumulation with other projects, which is none the less referred to in Annex III to that directive, as a selection criterion to be taken into account when the competent national authority determines whether projects in the classes listed in Annex II to that directive must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem v bistvu predlaga Sodi�ču, naj pojasni, ali italijanska zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, zagotavlja pravilen prenos člena 4 Direktive 85/337, čeprav v tej zakonodaji ni predvideno merilo kumulacije z drugimi projekti, navedeno v prilogi III k tej direktivi, kot izbirno merilo, ki ga je treba upo�tevati, ko pristojni nacionalni organ določi, ali morajo biti projekti iz priloge II k navedeni direktivi zavezani presoji vplivov na okolje.
It is settled caselaw that the Court has no jurisdiction, in proceedings brought on the basis of Article 234 EC, to rule on the compatibility of national rules with Community law.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�če ni pristojno, da bi se v okviru postopka, sproženega na podlagi člena 234 ES, izreklo o združljivosti predpisov nacionalnega prava z določbami prava Skupnosti.
On the other hand, the Court does have jurisdiction to provide the national court with all the guidance as to the interpretation of Community law necessary to enable that court to rule on the compatibility of those national rules with Community law (see Joined Cases C-338/04, C-359/04 and C-360/04 Placanica and Others [2007] ECR I-1891, paragraph 36 and the caselaw cited).
Nasprotno pa je Sodi�če pristojno, da predložitvenemu sodi�ču zagotovi vse napotke za razlago prava Skupnosti, ki mu omogočajo presojo združljivosti predpisov nacionalnega prava z zakonodajo Skupnosti (sodba z dne 6. marca 2007 v združenih zadevah Placanica in drugi, C-338/04, C-359/04 in C-360/04, ZOdl., str. I-1891, točka 36 in navedena sodna praksa).
In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the national court wishes to establish whether the Member States, in the transposition of the Directive into their domestic legal order, are required to adopt a provision drawing attention to the obligation to apply the criteria of the cumulation of the project concerned with other projects, referred to in Annex III to that directive, when an assessment is made
V obravnavanem primeru iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da želi nacionalno sodi�če izvedeti, ali morajo države članice, ko prenesejo Direktivo 85/337 v svoj notranji pravni red, sprejeti določbo, ki povzema obveznost upo�tevanja merila kumulacije zadevnega projekta z drugimi projekti, navedenega v prilogi III k tej direktivi, kadar
AIELLO AND OTHERS of whether a project in the classes listed in Annex II thereto must be made subject to the environmental impact assessment provided for in that directive.
AIELLO IN DRUGI gre za presojo, ali mora biti projekt iz priloge II k tej direktivi zavezan presoji njegovih vplivov na okolje, ki je določena z navedeno direktivo.
First of all, it should be observed that each of the Member States to which a directive is addressed is obliged to adopt, within the framework of its national legal system, all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive is fully effective, in accordance with the objective it pursues (Case C-32/05 Commission v Luxembourg [2006] ECR I-11323, paragraph 32).
V zvezi s tem je treba najprej spomniti, da je obveznost vsake od držav članic, ki so naslovnice direktive, da v svojem nacionalnem pravu sprejme vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev polnega učinka te direktive v skladu s ciljem, ki si ga prizadeva doseči (sodba z dne 30. novembra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu, C-32/05, ZOdl, str. I-11323, točka 32).
The Court has also held that the provisions of a directive must be implemented with unquestionable binding force and with the specificity, precision and clarity necessary to satisfy the need for legal certainty, which requires that, in the case of a directive intended to confer rights on individuals, the persons concerned must be enabled to ascertain the full extent of their rights (Case C-207/96 Commission v Italy [1997] ECR I-6869, paragraph 26).
Sodi�če je tudi odločilo, da je treba določbe direktive izvajati z nesporno zavezujočo močjo, z zahtevano specifičnostjo, natančnostjo in jasnostjo, da bi bila izpolnjena zahteva po pravni varnosti, na podlagi katere morajo biti upravičenci, če je ta direktiva namenjena podeljevanju pravic za posameznike, sposobni jasno določiti obseg svojih pravic (sodba z dne 4. decembra 1997 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-207/96, Recueil, str. I-6869, točka 26).
In the present case, Article 4 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as requiring the competent authority to take into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III to that directive when an assessment is made of whether a project in the classes listed in Annex II thereto must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, both when that assessment is made on the basis of a case-by-case examination and when the Member State concerned has opted for general rules.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba člen 4 Direktive 85/337 razlagati tako, da pristojnemu organu nalaga, naj upo�teva ustrezna izbirna merila, navedena v prilogi III k tej direktivi, kadar gre za presojo, ali mora biti projekt iz priloge II k tej direktivi zavezan presoji vplivov na okolje, bodisi kadar se ta presoja opravi za vsak primer posebej bodisi kadar se je zadevna država članica odločila za splo�no ureditev.
Where a Member State chooses to determine in a general and abstract manner, as it is permitted to do by Directive 85/337, the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to that directive which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, it bears responsibility for drawing up the list of those projects by applying one or more of the relevant criteria in Annex III, as appropriate.
Če se država članica odloči, da bo na splo�no in abstraktno, kot ji to dovoljuje Direktiva 85/337, določila projekte iz priloge II k tej direktivi, ki bodo morali biti predmet presoje vplivov na okolje, mora izdelati seznam teh projektov in pri tem uporabiti, odvisno od primera, enega ali več ustreznih meril iz navedene priloge III.
The criterion of cumulation can therefore, where relevant, be used to make one type of project subject to such an assessment, having regard to the completion of that project with other projects and if necessary taking into consideration the completion of all those projects during a specific period of time.
Merilo kumulacije se tako lahko, kjer je ustrezno, uporabi za to, da se vrsta projekta zaveže taki presoji, ob upo�tevanju izvedbe tega projekta z drugimi projekti, po potrebi z upo�tevanjem izvedbe vseh teh projektov v določenem obdobju.
Where a Member State opts, on the contrary, wholly or partially, to determine on a case-by-case basis the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337 which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, it bears responsibility for ensuring that the competent national authorities have regard to the various criteria listed in Annex III to that directive in so far as those criteria are relevant having regard to the characteristics of the project concerned.
Če se država članica nasprotno v celoti ali deloma odloči, da bo projekte iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337, ki morajo biti zavezani presoji vplivov na okolje, določila za vsak primer posebej, mora poskrbeti, da pristojni nacionalni organi upo�tevajo različna merila, navedena v prilogi III k tej direktivi, če so pomembna glede na značilnosti zadevnega projekta.
For that purpose, the Member State may refer, in its national legislation, to the criteria in Annex III.
V zvezi s tem se ta država članica lahko prek nacionalne zakonodaje sklicuje na merila iz navedene priloge III.
It can also integrate those criteria into its legislation, by expressly providing that the competent authorities must refer to them for the purpose of determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a project in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337 must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Ta merila lahko tudi vključi v svojo zakonodajo, tako da izrecno določi, da se bodo morali pristojni organi sklicevati nanje, da bi za vsak primer posebej določili, ali mora biti projekt iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337 predmet presoje vplivov na okolje.