natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Finally, the national court should be reminded that the objective of the legislation cannot be circumvented by the splitting of projects and that failure to take account of their cumulative effect must not mean in practice that they all escape the obligation to carry out an assessment when, taken together, they are likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 (see, to that effect, Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I-5901, paragraph 76).
Predložitveno sodi�če je treba nazadnje opozoriti na to, da se cilj predpisov ne sme zaobiti s tem, da se projekti razdrobijo in da posledica neupo�tevanja njihovega skupnega učinka ne sme biti, da se vsi projekti izognejo obveznosti presoje, medtem ko bi, če bi se upo�tevali skupaj, lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje v smislu člena 2(1) Direktive 85/337 (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski, C-392/96, Recueil, str. I-5901, točka 76).
Consequently, the answer to the first question must be that, while an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not a project within the meaning of Directive 85/337, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da sporazum, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, sicer ni projekt v smislu Direktive 85/337, vendar mora predložitveno sodi�če na podlagi nacionalnega prava, ki se uporabi, ugotoviti, ali tak sporazum pomeni soglasje za izvedbo v smislu člena 1(2) Direktive 85/337.
It is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a principal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact on the environment must be assessed globally.
V tej zvezi je treba preizkusiti, ali je to soglasje za izvedbo del večfaznega postopka, v katerem se izdata osnovna in izvr�itvena odločba in, če je treba, upo�tevati skupni učinek več projektov, katerih vplive na okolje je treba presoditi v celoti.
By its second question the national court asks, in essence, whether works relating to the infrastructure of an existing airport whose runway is already more than 2 100 metres in length fall with the scope of point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in its original version.
Predložitveno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali dela na infrastrukturi že zgrajenega letali�ča, katerega vzletna in pristajalna steza je že dalj�a od 2100 m, spadajo na področje uporabe točke 12 priloge II v povezavi s točko 7 priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 v njeni izvirni različici.
Pursuant to point 12 of Annex II in the version prior to Directive 97/11, ‘modifications to development projects included in Annex I’ constitute projects subject to Article 4(2).
V skladu s točko 12 priloge II v različici pred sprejetjem Direktive 97/11 je projekt, predviden v členu 4(2), „Sprememb[a] projektov, vključenih v Prilogo I“.
Point 7 of Annex I refers to the ‘construction … of airports … with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more’.
V točki 7 priloge I pa je omenjena „Gradnja […] letali�č […] z vzletno stezo osnovne dolžine 2100 m ali več.“
It would be contrary to the very objective of Directive 85/337 to exclude works to improve or extend the infrastructure of an existing airport from the scope of Annex II on the ground that Annex I covers the ‘construction of airports’ and not ‘airports’ as such.
Bilo bi pa v nasprotju s samim namenom Direktive 85/337, če bi bilo mogoče dela za izbolj�anje ali raz�iritev infrastrukture že zgrajenega letali�ča izmakniti področju uporabe priloge II k tej direktivi z obrazložitvijo, da se njena priloga I nana�a na „gradnjo letali�č“ in ne na „letali�ča“ kot taka.
Such an interpretation would indeed allow all works to modify a pre-existing airport, regardless of their extent, to fall outside the obligations resulting from Directive 85/337 and would, in that regard, thus deprive Annex II to Directive 85/337 of all effect.
Zaradi tovrstne razlage bi se namreč lahko vsa dela za spremembo že obstoječega letali�ča, ne glede na obseg teh del, izmaknila obveznostim, ki izhajajo iz Direktive 85/337, tako da bi bila njena priloga II popolnoma brez pomena.
Consequently, point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, must be regarded as also encompassing works to modify an existing airport.
Zato je treba določbe točke 12 priloge II v povezavi s točko 7 priloge razlagati tako, da se nana�ajo tudi na spremembe na že zgrajenem letali�ču.
That interpretation is in no way called into question by the fact that Directive 97/11 has replaced point 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337 with a new point 13, which expressly designates ‘any change or extension of projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorised, executed or in the process of being executed …’ as a project subject to Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, whereas point 12 of Annex II merely referred to ‘modifications to development projects included in Annex I. The new wording adopted by Directive 97/11, the fourth recital in the preamble to which makes reference to experience acquired in environmental impact assessment and stresses the need to introduce provisions designed to clarify, supplement and improve the rules on the assessment procedure, merely sets out with greater clarity the meaning to be given here to the original wording of Directive 85/337.
Te razlage nikakor ne omaje okoli�čina, da je v Direktivi 97/11 točko 12 priloge II k Direktivi 85/337 nadomestila nova točka 13, ki kot projekt v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive 85/337, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, izrecno označuje „Vsak[o] spremembo ali raz�iritev projektov, na�tetih v prilogi I in prilogi II, ki so že dovoljeni, izvedeni ali v izvedbi […]“, medtem ko se točka 12 priloge II sklicuje zgolj na „Spremembe projektov, vključenih v Prilogo I“. Nova različica, sprejeta z Direktivo 97/11, katere uvodna izjava 4 se sklicuje na izku�nje, pridobljene pri presoji vplivov na okolje, in poudarja nujo, da se uvedejo določbe, ki bodo pojasnile, dopolnile in izbolj�ale pravila o postopku presoje, v tem oziru namreč le jasneje določa pomen področja uporabe, ki ga ima Direktiva 85/337 v izvirni različici.
The Community legislature’s amendment cannot, therefore, warrant an a contrario interpretation of the directive in its original version.
Zato sprememba s strani normodajalca Skupnosti ne more zagotoviti a contrario razlage te direktive v njeni izvirni različici.
In addition, the fact that the works at issue in the main proceedings do not concern the length of the runway is not relevant to the question whether they fall within the scope of point 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337.
Za odgovor na vpra�anje, ali ta dela spadajo na področje uporabe točke 12 priloge II k Direktivi 85/337, prav tako ni pomembna okoli�čina, da se zadevna dela v sporu o glavni stvari ne nana�ajo na dolžino vzletne in pristajalne steze.
Point 7 of Annex I to Directive 85/337 makes a point of defining the term ‘airport’ by reference to the definition given in Annex 14 to the Chicago Convention of 7 December 1994 on International Civil Aviation.
V točki 7 priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 je namreč pojem „letali�če“ opredeljen ob sklicevanju na opredelitev v Čika�ki konvenciji z dne 7. decembra 1944 o ustanovitvi Mednarodne organizacije civilnega letalstva.
Under that annex, an aerodrome is ‘a defined area on land or water (including any buildings, installations and equipment) intended to be used either wholly or in part for the arrival, departure and surface movement of aircraft’.
V skladu s to prilogo je „letali�če […] povr�ina na zemlji ali vodi (vključno s stavbo, objekti in opremo), delno ali v celoti namenjena uporabi za prihod, odhod zrakoplovov in njihovo premikanje po povr�ini.“
It follows that all works relating to the buildings, installations or equipment of an airport must be considered to be works relating to the airport as such.
Iz tega izhaja, da je treba vsa dela na stavbah, objektih ali opremi letali�ča �teti za dela na letali�ču kot takem.
For the application of point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, that means that works to modify an airport with a runway length
To za uporabo točke 12, priloge II, v povezavi s točko 7 priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 pomeni, da spremembe letali�ča z vzletno in
2008 — CASE C-2/07 of 2 100 metres or more thus comprise not only works to extend the runway, but all works relating to the buildings, installations or equipment of that airport where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself.
2008 – ZADEVA C-2/07 pristajalno stezo dolžine 2100 m in več torej niso le dela, katerih predmet je podalj�anje steze, temveč vsa dela na stavbah, napravah ali opremi tega letali�ča, če jih je mogoče �teti za spremembe samega letali�ča, zlasti zaradi njihove narave, pomena in njihovih značilnosti.
That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic.
To velja zlasti za dela, katerih namen je pomembno povečati obseg dejavnosti letali�ča in zračnega prometa.
Finally, it is appropriate to remind the national court that, although the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 confers on Member States a measure of discretion to specify certain types of projects which will be subject to an assessment or to establish the criteria and/or thresholds applicable, the limits of that discretion are to be found in the obligation set out in Article 2(1) of the directive that projects likely, by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location, to have significant effects on the environment are to be subject to an impact assessment (Kraaijeveld and Others, paragraph 50).
Nazadnje je treba predložitveno sodi�če opozoriti na to, da imajo sicer države članice na podlagi člena 4(2), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 85/337 diskrecijsko pravico za določitev vrst projektov, za katere je treba opraviti presojo oziroma določiti merila in/ali pragove, vendar je omejena z obveznostjo, določeno v členu 2(1) te direktive, da se presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo med drugim zaradi narave, velikosti ali lokacije verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje (zgoraj navedena sodba Kraaijeveld in drugi, točka 50).
Thus, a Member State which establishes criteria and/or thresholds taking account only of the size of projects, without also taking their nature and location into consideration, would exceed the limits of its discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337.
Zato bi država članica, ki bi določila merila in/ali pragove tako, da bi se upo�tevala zgolj velikost projektov, ne pa njihova narava in lokacija, prekoračila diskrecijsko pravico, določeno v členih 2(1) in 4(2) Direktive 85/337.
The answer to the second question must therefore be that point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version,
Zato je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da se točka 12 priloge II v povezavi s točko 7 priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 v svoji izvirni različici nana�a tudi na spremembe infrastrukture obstoječega letali�ča brez podalj�anja vzletne in pristajalne steze, če
ABRAHAM AND OTHERS also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself.
ABRAHAM IN DRUGI se lahko zaradi njihove narave, pomena in značilnosti �tejejo za spremembe samega letali�ča.
That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic.
To velja zlasti za dela, ki so namenjena temu, da se bistveno poveča obseg dejavnosti letali�ča in zračnega prometa.
The third question
Tretje vprašanje
By its third question the national court asks, in essence, whether the competent authorities have an obligation to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport in determining whether a project covered by point 12 of Annex II to Directive 85/337 must be made subject to an assessment of its impact on the environment.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali morajo pristojni organi upo�tevati načrtovano povečanje obsega dejavnosti letali�ča pri odločanju, ali je treba za projekt, na katerega se nana�a točka 12 priloge II k Direktivi 85/337, opraviti presojo njegovih vplivov na okolje.
As stated in paragraph 32 of this judgment, the Court has frequently pointed out that the scope of Directive 85/337 is wide and its purpose very broad.
Kot je bilo navedeno v točki 32 te sodbe, je Sodi�če že večkrat navedlo, da je področje uporabe Direktive 85/337 obsežno, njen cilj pa zelo �irok.
In addition, although the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 confers on Member States a measure of discretion to specify certain types of projects which will be subject to an assessment or to establish the criteria and/or thresholds applicable, the limits of that discretion are to be found in the obligation set out in Article 2(1) 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.
Države članice imajo sicer na podlagi člena 4(2), drugi pododstavek, Direktive 85/337 diskrecijsko pravico za določitev vrst projektov, za katere je treba opraviti presojo oziroma določiti merila in/ali pragove, vendar je omejena z obveznostjo, določeno v členu 2(1) te direktive, da se presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo med drugim zaradi narave, velikosti ali lokacije verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
In that regard, Directive 85/337 seeks an overall assessment of the environmental impact of projects or of their modification.
V tem pogledu si Direktiva 85/337 prizadeva za celostno presojo vplivov, ki jih imajo projekti ali njihove spremembe na okolje.
It would be simplistic and contrary to that approach to take account, when assessing the environmental impact of a project or of its modification, only of the direct effects of the works envisaged themselves, and not of the environmental impact liable to result from the use and exploitation of the end product of those works.
Bilo bi poenostavljeno in v nasprotju s tem pristopom, če bi se v okviru presoje vplivov projekta ali njegove spremembe na okolje upo�tevali zgolj neposredni učinki samih načrtovanih del, ne pa vplivi na okolje, ki bi lahko nastali z uporabo in izrabljanjem objektov, ki nastanejo s temi deli.
Moreover, the list laid down in Article 3 of Directive 85/337 of the factors to be taken into account, such as the effect of the project on human beings, fauna and flora, soil, water, air or the cultural heritage, shows, in itself, that the environmental impact whose assessment Directive 85/337 is designed to enable is not only the impact of the works envisaged but also, and above all, the impact of the project to be carried out.
V preostalem seznam upo�tevnih dejavnikov, navedenih v členu 3 Direktive 85/337, kot so učinki, ki jih ima projekt zlasti na ljudi, živalstvo in rastlinstvo, na tla, vodo, zrak, podnebje ali kulturno dedi�čino, sam po sebi kaže to, da vpliv na okolje, katerega presojo naj bi omogočila Direktiva 85/337, ni le vpliv načrtovanih del, temveč tudi in predvsem vpliv del, ki jih je treba uresničiti.
The Court has thus held, in relation to a project to double an existing railway track, that a project of that kind can have a significant effect on the environment within the meaning of Directive 85/337, since it is likely to produce, inter alia, significant noise effects (Case C-227/01 Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I-8253, paragraph 49).
Sodi�če je v zvezi s projektom izgradnje drugega tira že obstoječe železni�ke proge ugotovilo, da ima lahko tovrsten projekt pomembne vplive na okolje v smislu Direktive 85/337, ker lahko med drugim povzroči močan hrup (sodba z dne 16. septembra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-227/01, ZOdl., str. I-8253, točka 49).
In that case, the significant noise effects were brought about not by the works involved in doubling the railway track but by the foreseeable increase in rail traffic permitted precisely by the works involved in doubling the track.
V zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana ta sodba, močnega hrupa niso povzročila dela izgradnje drugega železni�kega tira, temveč predvidljiv povečan obseg železni�kega prometa, pri čemer je povečanje omogočila ravno izgradnja drugega tira obstoječe železnice.
The same must apply to a project, such as the one in dispute in the main proceedings, which seeks to enable an increase in the activity of an airport and, consequently, in the intensity of air traffic.
Isto mora veljati za projekt, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, ki naj bi omogočil povečanje obsega dejavnosti letali�ča in s tem intenzivnost letalskega prometa.
Therefore, the answer to the third question must be that the competent authorities have to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environmental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a view to accommodating that increase in activity.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da morajo pristojni organi upo�tevati načrtovano povečanje obsega dejavnosti letali�ča, ko presojajo vpliv, ki ga imajo na okolje spremembe letali�ke infrastrukture, da se lahko dopusti povečanje obsega dejavnosti.
While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337.
Sporazum, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, sicer ni projekt v smislu Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, vendar mora predložitveno sodišče na podlagi nacionalnega prava, ki se uporabi, ugotoviti, ali tak sporazum pomeni soglasje za izvedbo v smislu člena 1(2) Direktive 85/337.
It is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a principal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact on the environment must be assessed globally.
V tej zvezi je treba preizkusiti, ali je to soglasje za izvedbo del večfaznega postopka, v katerem se izdata osnovna odločba in izvršitvena odločba in, če je treba, upoštevati skupni učinek več projektov, katerih vplive na okolje je treba presoditi v celoti.
Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version, also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and char-
Točka 12 priloge II v povezavi s točko 7 priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 v izvirni različici se ravno tako nanaša na spremembe infrastrukture obstoječega leta-
2008 — CASE C-2/07 acteristics, as a modification of the airport itself.
2008 – ZADEVA C-2/07 lišča brez podaljšanja vzletne in pristajalne steze, če se lahko zaradi narave, pomena in značilnosti štejejo za spremembe samega letališča.
That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic. It is for the national court to establish that the competent authorities correctly assessed whether the works at issue in the main proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
To velja zlasti za dela, ki so namenjena temu, da se pomembno poveča obseg dejavnosti letališča in zračnega prometa: predložitveno sodišče mora zagotoviti, da so pristojni organi pravilno presodili, ali je bilo treba za dela, ki so sporna v postopku v glavni stvari, opraviti presojo vplivov na okolje.
The competent authorities have to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environmental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a view to accommodating that increase in activity.
Pristojni organi morajo upoštevati načrtovano povečanje obsega dejavnosti letališča, ko presojajo vpliv, ki ga imajo na okolje spremembe letališke infrastrukture, da se lahko dopusti povečanje obsega dejavnosti.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE DECISIONS PUBLISHEDFOR THE YEAR 2008
KRONOLOŠKO KAZALO ODLOČB, OBJAVLJENIH V LETNIKU 2008
Case C-70/06: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Financial penalty) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-70/06: Komisija Evropskih skupnosti proti Portugalski republiki („Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Sodba Sodišča, s katero je ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti – Neizpolnitev – Denarna kazen“) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality — Forfeiture of export refunds) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)
Združeni zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH in Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas („Uredba (ES) št. 615/98 – Direktiva 91/628/EGS – Izvozna nadomestila – Zaščita goveda med prevozom – Pogoj spoštovanja določb Direktive 91/628/EGS za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za govedo – Načelo sorazmernosti – Izguba pravice do nadomestila“) (Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg) . .
Case C-246/06: Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Direct- ive 2002/74/EC — Direct effect — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under a judicial conciliation settlement — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-246/06: Josefa Velasco Navarro proti Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) („Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Neposredni učinek – Odškodnina za protipravno odpoved delovnega razmerja, določena v okviru sodne poravnave – Izplačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Izplačilo, ki je pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . .