natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the Commission did not prejudice the rights of the defence since the Italian Republic was given the opportunity to prepare its defence before receiving the reasoned opinion.
Ker je Italijanska republika imela možnost pripraviti svojo obrambo, preden je prejela obrazloženo mnenje, Komisija ni kr�ila pravic do obrambe.
The first complaint, alleging infringement of Articles 2 to 14 of Directive 1999/31 arising from the delay in transposing that directive
Prvi očitek: kršitev členov od 2 do 14 Direktive 1999/31, ki izhaja iz zamude pri njenem prenosu
The Italian Republic therefore infringed, so far as concerns those landfills, Articles 2 to 14 of that directive, since they were not applied to all those landfills, which ought, on the contrary, to have
Italijanska republika naj bi torej v zvezi s temi odlagali�či kr�ila člene od 2 do 14 te direktive, saj naj ti členi ne bi bili uporabljeni za
COMMISSION v ITALY been regarded as new.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI vsa odlagali�ča, ki bi morala biti, nasprotno, obravnavana kot nova.
The Italian authorities thus intentionally chose to infringe the Community provisions concerned because, even when transposing the directive out of time, they could have, and should have, made those landfills subject to the treatment reserved by the directive to new landfills.
Italijanski organi naj bi se tako prosto odločili za kr�itev zadevnih določb Skupnosti, ker bi, čeprav s prepoznim prenosom te direktive, lahko in bi morali s temi istimi odlagali�či ravnati na način, ki je s to isto direktivo rezerviran za nova odlagali�ča.
The Commission adds that the fact, relied on during the administrative procedure, that the Italian Republic preferred unilaterally to await the adoption of Decision 2003/33/EC does not justify the delay in the implementation of Directive 1999/31.
Komisija dodaja, da dejstvo, navedeno v upravnem postopku, da je Italijanska republika raje enostransko počakala na sprejetje Odločbe 2003/33, ne upravičuje zamude pri prenosu Direktive 1999/31.
That implementation did not depend in any way on the existence of such a measure since, in accordance with the directive, the Member States were to use national criteria in compliance with the requirements in Annex II to the directive.
Ta prenos naj namreč nikakor ne bi bil odvisen od obstoja takega akta, če bi države članice v skladu s to direktivo morale uporabiti nacionalna merila, ki so v skladu s predpisi priloge II k tej direktivi.
The Italian Republic pleads, first of all, that this complaint is inadmissible, stating that the Commission cannot start proceedings before the Court on the basis of a delay in the transposition of Directive 1999/31 when the implementing legislative decree was adopted before the pre-litigation procedure was initiated and that delay is a fact which is impossible to remedy.
Italijanska republika najprej uveljavlja ugovor nedopustnosti tega očitka s trditvijo, da Komisija ne more zadeve predložiti sodi�ču na podlagi zamude pri prenosu Direktive 1999/31, če je bila zakonska uredba sprejeta pred začetkom predhodnega postopka in če te zamude ni mogoče popraviti.
The Italian Republic claims, secondly, that that delay led to the need, for exclusively technical and administrative reasons, to make landfills authorised between the date of expiry of the period for transposition of Directive 1999/31 and that of the entry into force of Legislative Decree No 36/2003 subject to the obligations set out in the dir -ective for existing landfill sites.
Ta država članica nato navaja, da je zaradi zamude postalo nujno, da se iz izključno tehničnih in administrativnih razlogov za odlagali�ča, ki imajo dovoljenja od dneva izteka roka za prenos Direktive 1999/31 do dneva začetka veljavnosti zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003, določi obveznosti glede obstoječih odlagali�č, določenim s to direktivo.
It was necessary to lay down in respect of those landfills, which already contained a certain amount of waste, a transitional period during
Za ta odlagali�ča, ki so že vsebovala nekoliko odpadkov, bi bilo namreč treba določiti prehodno obdobje, v katerem bi imetniki dovoljenj za upravljanje morali začeti
2008 — CASE C-442/06 which the holders of operating permits had to adapt those sites.
2008 – ZADEVA C-442/06 s prilagoditvijo le-teh.
Those transitional arrangements reflected, moreover, the need not to create a situation of inequality for economic operators already holding such permits on the date of entry into force of the legislative decree.
Ta prehodni sistem bi poleg tega ustrezal potrebi, da se ne ustvari neenak položaj za gospodarske upravitelje, ki že imajo taka dovoljenja na dan začetka veljavnosti navedene zakonske uredbe.
The arrangements were, in any event, extremely restrictive and laid down a mandatory time-limit for the presentation of a conditioning plan for the sites which was shorter than that set by Directive 1999/31.
Zadevni sistem naj bi bil v vsakem primeru izjemno zavezujoč in naj bi predvideval strogo določen rok za predložitev načrta prilagoditve odlagali�ča, ki je kraj�i od roka, ki ga določa Direktiva 1999/31.
As regards the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Italian Republic alleging that there is a lack of legal interest in a finding of delay in the transposition of Directive 1999/31, it should be noted that the form of order sought in the present action, in particular in so far as it is based on the action’s first complaint, does not relate to a declaration of such delay but to a declaration that the transitional provisions of Legislative Decree No 36/2003 do not comply with the directive so far as concerns the treatment of landfills opened during the period from the date of expiry of the period for transposition of the directive to the date of entry into force of the legislative decree.
Glede ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga uveljavlja Italijanska republika in ki izhaja iz pomanjkanja interesa, ki ga je treba ugotoviti glede zamude pri prenosu Direktive 1999/31, je treba poudariti, da ni cilj predlogov te tožbe, zlasti v delu, v katerem temeljijo na njenem prvem očitku, naj se ugotovi taka zamuda, ampak naj se ugotovi neskladnost prehodnih določb zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003 s to direktivo glede ravnanja z odlagali�či, ki so bila odprta v obdobju od izteka roka za prenos navedene direktive do začetka veljavnosti te zakonske uredbe.
As is apparent from the caselaw of the Court, a Member State which has not transposed, within the period prescribed, a Community directive and against which infringement proceedings have been brought in respect not of the failure to transpose but of the failure to fulfil an obligation flowing from that directive cannot plead the fact that it has not taken the necessary measures to implement the directive in order to object to the admissibility of the action and hence to prevent the Court from examining the application for a declaration that it has failed to fulfil its obligations (Case C-431/92 Commission v Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, paragraph 23).
Kot izhaja iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča, se država članica, ki v predpisanem roku ni prenesla direktive Skupnosti in proti kateri je vložena tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, katere predmet ni to nedelovanje, ampak nespo�tovanje obveznosti, ki izhaja iz te direktive, ne more pri ugovoru dopustnosti tožbe sklicevati na to, da ni sprejela potrebnih ukrepov za prenos navedene direktive, in s tem ugovarjati temu, da Sodi�če preuči predlog za ugotovitev navedene neizpolnitve obveznosti (sodba z dne 11. avgusta 1995 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-431/92, Recueil, str. I-2189, točka 23).
The plea that the first complaint in the action is inadmissible because the Commission lacks a legal interest in bringing proceedings must consequently be rejected.
Zato je treba ugovor nedopustnosti iz prvega očitka v tožbi, da Komisija nima pravnega interesa, zavrniti.
As regards the substance of this complaint, as the Commission has correctly noted and is not disputed by the Italian Republic, Legislative Decree No 36/2003 does not provide for the application of the provisions concerning new landfills, that is to say, in particular, Articles 2 to 13 of Directive 1999/31, to landfills authorised between the date of expiry of the period for transposition of the directive and that of the entry into force of the legislative decree.
Glede utemeljenosti tega očitka je treba ugotoviti, da, kot je pravilno navedla Komisija in Italijanska republika tega ni izpodbijala, zakonska uredba �t. 36/2003 ne določa uporabe določb o novih odlagali�čih za odlagali�ča, ki so imela dovoljenja od izteka roka za prenos Direktive 1999/31 do začetka veljavnosti te zakonske uredbe, med drugim členov od 2 do 13 navedene direktive.
On the other hand, it provides for the application to those landfills of the treatment reserved to existing landfill sites, by making them subject to the adaptation procedure laid down in Article 17 of the legislative decree.
Nasprotno, za ta odlagali�ča določa uporabo obravnavanja, ki je rezervirano za obstoječa odlagali�ča, s da ko zanje določa postopek prilagoditve, določen v njenem členu 17.
When a directive, such as that in question in the present case, lays down unequivocal obligations on the competent national authorities, Member States which have not transposed the directive cannot consider themselves relieved from compliance with those obligations after the period for transposition has expired and cannot exclude, by a transitional provision, the application of the provisions of the directive.
Če direktiva, kot je obravnavana v tej zadevi, pristojnim nacionalnim organom določa nedvoumne obveznosti, se države članice, ki niso prenesle te direktive, po izteku roka za prenos ne morejo �teti za opro�čene spo�tovanja teh obveznosti in ne morejo s prehodno določbo izključiti uporabe določb navedene direktive.
To allow the State such a right would have the effect of allowing it to defer the time-limit for transposition by it (see, to that effect, Case C-396/92 Bund Naturschutz in Bayern and Others [1994] ECR I-3717, paragraph 19).
Odobritev take možnosti državi članici bi omogočila odložitev roka za prenos (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 9. avgusta 1994 v zadevi Bund Naturschutz in Bayern in drugi, C-396/92, Recueil, str. I-3717, točka 19).
It follows that the Italian Republic should have applied to landfills authorised between 16 July 2001 and 27 March 2003 the provisions of Directive 1999/31 concerning new
Iz tega sledi, da bi Italijanska republika morala za odlagali�ča, ki imajo dovoljenja od 16. julija 2001 do 27. marca 2003, uporabiti določbe Direktive 1999/31 o novih
2008 — CASE C-442/06 landfills contained in Articles 2 to 13 of the directive.
2008 – ZADEVA C-442/06 odlagali�čih, ki jih vsebujejo njeni členi od 2 do 13.
Therefore, by adopting and maintaining in force Legislative Decree No 36/2003 which excludes such application, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under those articles.
Zato s sprejetjem in ohranitvijo veljavnosti zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003, s katero je izključena taka uporaba, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz teh členov.
In addition, by applying the set of rules laid down in Article 14 of Directive 1999/31 concerning existing landfill sites to new landfills, it has also failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.
Poleg tega s tem, da je sistem, določen s členom 14 Direktive 1999/31, ki se nana�a na obstoječa odlagali�ča, uporabila za nova odlagali�ča, niti ni izpolnila obveznosti iz tega člena.
Moreover, the grounds relied on by the Italian Republic to justify its delay in transposing and applying Directive 1999/31, which relate to the need to await the adoption of Decision 2003/33, are not well founded.
Poleg tega razlogi, ki jih ta država članica navaja, da bi upravičila zamudo pri prenosu in uporabi Direktive 1999/31, in ki izhajajo iz tega, da je bilo treba počakati na sprejetje Odločbe 2003/33, niso utemeljeni.
That decision is designed to specify the rules concerning the criteria and procedures for the acceptance of waste at landfills.
Cilj te odločbe je namreč določiti pravila o merilih in postopkih za sprejetje odpadkov na odlagali�ča.
However, those rules are set out in the directive and their application is not conditional on the adoption of such a decision pursuant to Article 16 of the directive.
Ta pravila so torej navedena v tej direktivi in na podlagi njenega člena 16 njihova uporaba ni odvisna od sprejetja take odločbe.
Accordingly, the first complaint relied on by the Commission in support of its action must be considered to be well founded.
Zato je treba prvi očitek, ki ga je Komisija navedla v utemeljitev tožbe, �teti za utemeljen.
The second complaint, alleging infringement of Article 14(d)(i) of Directive 1999/31
Drugi očitek: kršitev člena 14(d)(i) Direktive 1999/31
In its second complaint, the Commission notes that Article 14(d)(i) of Direct- ive 1999/31, which lays down transitional rules concerning landfills for hazardous
Komisija z drugim očitkom navaja, da člen 14(d)(i) Direktive 1999/31, s katerim so predpisana prehodna pravila o odlagali�čih za nevarne odpadke, določa, da
COMMISSION v ITALY waste, provides that Articles 4, 5 and 11 of, and Annex II to, that directive are to apply, from 16 July 2002, to existing landfill sites, whereas Legislative Decree No 36/2003 does not provide for any application of those provisions to such landfills, merely laying down, on the contrary, in Article 17(2)(c), transitional rules exclusively for new landfills.
KOMISIJA PROTI ITALIJI se členi 4, 5 in 11 ter njena priloga II od 16. julija 2002 uporabljajo za obstoječa odlagali�ča, medtem ko zakonska uredba �t. 36/2003 nikakor ne določa uporabe teh določb za ista odlagali�ča, pri čemer se, nasprotno, v členu 17(2)(c) omejuje na določitev prehodnih pravil izključno za nova odlagali�ča.
The latter provision therefore conflicts not only with Article 14(d)(i) of the directive but also with the provisions which must be applied to existing landfill sites, namely, in particular, Articles 4, 5 and 11 and Annex II.
Slednja določba naj bi bila torej nezdružljiva ne le s členom 14(d)(i) te direktive, ampak tudi z določbami, ki jih je treba uporabiti za obstoječa odlagali�ča, zlasti s členi 4, 5 in 11 ter prilogo II k tej direktivi.
Moreover, the Italian legislation applicable to those landfills before the entry into force of the dir -ective did not comply with those provisions either.
Poleg tega italijanska zakonodaja, ki se je uporabljala za zadnjenavedena odlagali�ča pred začetkom veljavnosti te direktive, naj prav tako ne bi bila v skladu s to direktivo.
The Italian Republic observes that any finding that it has failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from this complaint will not enable it to take the measures necessary to comply with Directive 1999/31 since the Court will deliver its judgment after the expiry of the time-limit set, as regards the transitional arrangements specific to landfills for hazardous waste, at 31 December 2006.
Italijanska republika ugotavlja, da ji morebitna ugotovitev neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki bi izhajala iz tega očitka, ne bo omogočala sprejetja potrebnih ukrepov za uskladitev z Direktivo 1999/31, če bo sodba Sodi�ča izdana po preteku roka, ki je glede posebnega sistema za odlagali�ča za nevarne odpadke določen za 31. december 2006.
That Member State submits, as regards the substance of the second complaint, that Article 17 of Legislative Decree No 36/2003 correctly transposes Article 14(d)(i) of Directive 1999/31 since it provides for the application of Articles 4, 5 and 11 thereof to existing landfill sites.
Ta država glede utemeljenosti tega drugega očitka poudarja, da člen 17 zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003 pravilno prena�a člen 14(d)(i) Direktive 1999/31, saj določa uporabo njenih členov 4, 5 in 11 za obstoječa odlagali�ča.
Pursuant to Article 17(3) to (5) of the legislative decree, operators of those landfills should have submitted conditioning plans for the sites to the competent authority by 27 September 2003 at the latest.
Na podlagi odstavkov od 3 do 5 navedenega člena 17 bi namreč upravitelji teh odlagali�č morali najpozneje 27. septembra 2003 pristojnemu organu predložiti načrt prilagoditve odlagali�č.
The latter was to approve the plan in the light of the conditions set by the provisions transposing the directive, relating to the classification of landfills and the conditions under which their operations may continue, by 16 July 2009, the time-limit set by the directive for completing the adaptation of existing landfill sites.
Ta organ bi moral potrditi ta načrt v smislu pogojev, določenih z določbami, ki prena�ajo to direktivo in ki se nana�ajo na razvrstitev odlagali�č in na pogoje, ki omogočajo nadaljevanje njihove dejavnosti, pred 16. julijem 2009, kar je rok za dokončanje prilagoditve obstoječih odlagali�č, določen z navedeno direktivo.
Further, Article 17(2)(c) of Legislative Decree No 36/2003, relied on by the Commission, lays down a transitional provision according to which hazardous
Poleg tega naj bi člen 17(2)(c) zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003, ki jo navaja Komisija, določal prehodno določbo, na podlagi katere se nevarni odpaki, ki so po ureditvi, ki
2008 — CASE C-442/06 waste intended, in accordance with the legislation prior to the legislative decree, for landfills for hazardous and toxic waste may be accepted in such landfills up to 31 December 2006.
2008 – ZADEVA C-442/06 je veljala pred to zakonsko uredbo, namenjeni na odlagali�ča za nevarne in strupene odpadke, lahko prevzamejo na takih odlagali�čih do 31. decembra 2006.
22), did not transpose the provisions of Directive 1999/31, it provided for prohibitions and specific procedures for the acceptance of that waste at those landfills, in accordance with the rules laid down in that directive.
22), čeprav ni prenesla določb Direktive 1999/31, določala prepovedi in posebne postopke za sprejetje teh odpadkov na navedena odlagali�ča, v skladu s pravili, ki jih določa ta direktiva.
Regarding the plea of inadmissibility put forward by the Italian Republic, it should be recalled that it is settled caselaw that the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion.
Glede ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga uveljavlja Italijanska republika, je treba opozoriti, da je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso obstoj neizpolnitve obveznosti presoditi glede na položaj države članice, kot je obstajal ob preteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju.
In the present case, Article 17(2)(c) of Legislative Decree No 36/2003 contains a transitional provision regarding landfills for hazardous waste which, as confirmed by the Italian Republic, was applicable also on the expiry of the period prescribed for that Member State to comply with the reasoned opinion sent to it by the Commission.
V obravnavani zadevi je treba ugotoviti, da člen 17(2)(c) zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003 vsebuje prehodno določbo o odlagali�čih za nevarne odpadke, ki se je, kot je potrdila Italijanska republika, uporabljala tudi v roku, ki je bil tej državi članici določen za uskladitev z obrazloženim mnenjem, ki ji ga je poslala Komisija.
Furthermore, contrary to what the Italian Republic asserts, the basis of the failure to fulfil obligations complained of by the Commission is that several provisions of Italian law applicable to those landfills do not comply with Community law.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da v nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje navedena država članica, neizpolnitev obveznosti, ki jo očita Komisija, temelji na neskladnosti s pravom Skupnosti glede več določb italijanskega prava, ki se uporablja za navedena odlagali�ča.
These provisions include not only the provision which refers to the waste which may be accepted at those landfills, for which Legislative Decree No 36/2003 lays down transitional treatment rules, but also provisions relating to the treatment of waste and the procedure for acceptance of that waste at landfills.
Te določbe ne obsegajo le tiste določbe, ki omenja odpadke, ki se lahko prevzamejo na teh odlagali�čih, za katere zakonska uredba �t. 36/2003 določa podrobna pravila o prehodnem ravnanju, ampak tudi določbe o ravnanju z odpadki in o postopku njihovega prevzema na odlagali�čih.
It follows that the second complaint, relating to the infringement of Article 14 (d)(i) of Directive 1999/31, is admissible.
Iz tega sledi, da je drugi očitek v tožbi, ki se nana�a na kr�itev člena 14(d)(i) Direktive 1999/31, dopusten.
As regards the substance of the second complaint, it should be recalled that Article 14(d)(i) of the directive provides that Articles 4, 5 and 11 and Annex II are to apply to existing landfill sites for hazardous waste within a period of one year after the date of expiry of the period for transposition of the directive, namely from 16 July 2002.
Glede utemeljenosti tega drugega očitka je treba opozoriti, da člen 14(d)(i) te direktive določa, da se členi 4, 5 in 11 ter njena priloga II uporabljajo za obstoječa odlagali�ča za nevarne odpadke v roku enega leta od preteka roka za prenos navedene direktive, in sicer od 16. julija 2002.
That provision thus lays down, irrespective of the duration of the procedure for adapting existing landfill sites which must be completed on 16 July 2009, a short period for the application of the said provisions to those landfills.
Ta določba tako neodvisno od trajanja postopka prilagoditve obstoječih odlagali�č, ki mora biti končan 16. julija 2009, določa kratek rok za uporabo navedenih določb za ta odlagali�ča.
By contrast, as the Commission has correctly stated, Article 17(2)(c) of Legislative Decree No 36/2003, which lays down, in particular, transitional provisions concerning the treatment of hazardous waste, applies only to new landfills and does not lay down any transitional rule for the treatment of that waste in existing landfill sites.
Nasprotno, kot je Komisija pravilno poudarila, pa se člen 17(2)(c) zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003, ki med drugim določa prehodne določbe o ravnanju z nevarnimi odpadki, uporablja le za nova odlagali�ča, in ne določa nobenega prehodnega pravila za ravnanje s temi odpadki na obstoječih odlagali�čih.
Contrary to the statements of the Italian Republic, Article 17(3) to (5) of Legislative Decree No 36/2003 also does not provide for the application to those landfills, from 16 July 2002, of Articles 4, 5 and 11 of, and Annex II to, Directive 1999/31.
V nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje Italijanska republika, člen 17, odstavki od 3 do 5, zakonske uredbe �t. 36/2003 niti ne določa, da se za ta odlagali�ča od 16. julija 2002 uporabljajo členi 4, 5 in 11 ter priloga II k Direktivi 1999/31.
That national provision lays down only an adaptation procedure which applies to all landfills, irrespective of the class to which they belong.
Te določbe nacionalnega prava namreč določajo le postopek prilagoditve, ki se uporablja za vsa odlagali�ča, ne glede na razred, v katerega spadajo.
According to that provision, the holder of the permit to operate a landfill must present a site-conditioning plan to the competent authority within six months from the date of entry into force of the legislative decree.
Na podlagi navedene določbe mora imetnik dovoljenja za upravljanje odlagali�ča v �estih mesecih od začetka veljavnosti zakonske uredbe pristojnim organom predložiti načrt prilagoditve odlagali�ča.
The competent authority authorises the continuation of the activity of the landfill and lays down the works for compliance, the method of execution and the time-limit for completion of the procedure.
Ta organ dovoli nadaljevanje dejavnosti odlaganja in določi ukrepe za uskladitev, podrobna pravila za izvajanje in končni rok za njihovo izpolnitev.
The adaptation of the landfill must be completed by 16 July 2009.
Prilagoditev odlagali�ča mora biti zaključena pred 16. julijem 2009.