natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, where a Member State chooses to proceed by that route it cannot, without failing to fulfil its Community obligations, exclude expressly or impliedly one or more of the criteria in Annex III to Directive 85/337, in so far as any of those criteria may, depending on which project in the classes listed in Annex II is concerned, be relevant for the purposes of ascertaining whether an environmental impact procedure must be organised.
Vsekakor, če se država članica odloči za ta način, ne more, ne da bi kr�ila svoje skupnostne obveznosti, eksplicitno ali implicitno izključiti enega ali več meril iz priloge III k Direktivi 85/337, ker je lahko glede na projekt iz priloge II k tej direktivi, ki se obravnava, vsako od teh meril ustrezno za določitev, ali je treba izvesti postopek za presojo vplivov na okolje.
The answer to the third question referred is therefore that, where a Member State opts for determining on a case-by-case basis those of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337 which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, it must, either by referring in its national rules to Annex III to that directive or by reproducing in its national rules the criteria listed there, ensure that all of those criteria can in fact be taken into account where one or more of them is relevant for the purposes of the project concerned, and cannot expressly or impliedly exclude them.
Zato je treba na tretje postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da če se država članica odloči, da bo tiste projekte iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337, ki morajo biti predmet presoje njihovih vplivov na okolje, določila za vsak primer posebej, mora bodisi s sklicevanjem v svojih nacionalnih pravilih na prilogo III k tej direktivi bodisi s povzemanjem meril, ki so navedena v tej prilogi, v svojih nacionalnih pravilih, poskrbeti za to, da se vsa ta merila lahko dejansko upo�tevajo, kadar je eno ali drugo od teh meril ustrezno za zadevni projekt, ne da bi ga lahko eksplicitno ali implicitno izločila.
On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (�esti senat) razsodilo:
Article 2(1) 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, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, 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) of that directive.
Člen 2(1) Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997, je treba razlagati tako, da ne vsebuje zahteve, da se vsak projekt, ki bi lahko pomembno vplival na okolje, zaveže postopku presoje, določenem v tej direktivi, ampak da morajo biti temu postopku zavezani samo projekti, ki so navedeni v prilogah I in II k navedeni direktivi, pod pogoji, določenimi v členu 4 te direktive, ter ob upoštevanju členov 1(4) in (5) ter 2(3) iste direktive.
Member States are required to take into account the relevant selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 85/337, as amended by Direct- ive 97/11, 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 those projects must be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure.
Ustrezna izbirna merila, navedena v prilogi III k Direktivi 85/337, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, so 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.
Where a Member State opts for determining on a case-by-case basis those of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended
Če se država članica odloči, da bo tiste projekte iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, ki morajo biti predmet
2008 — CASE C-156/07 by Directive 97/11, which must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment, it must, either by referring in its national rules to Annex III to that directive or by reproducing in its national rules the criteria listed there, ensure that all of those criteria can in fact be taken into account where one or more of them is relevant for the purposes of the project concerned, and cannot expressly or impliedly exclude them.
2008 – ZADEVA C-156/07 presoje vplivov na okolje, določila za vsak primer posebej, mora bodisi s sklicevanjem v svojih nacionalnih pravilih na prilogo III k tej direktivi bodisi s povzemanjem meril, ki so navedena v tej prilogi, v svojih nacionalnih pravilih, poskrbeti za to, da se vsa ta merila lahko dejansko upoštevajo, kadar je eno ali drugo od teh meril ustrezno za zadevni projekt, ne da bi ga lahko eksplicitno ali implicitno izločila.
Case C-173/07
Zadeva C-173/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main)
(Carriage by air — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation for passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Scope — Article 3(1)(a) — Concept of ‘flight’)
„Letalski prevoz – Uredba (ES) �t. 261/2004 – Od�kodnina za potnike v primeru odpovedi leta – Področje uporabe – Člen 3(1)(a) – Pojem ‚let‘“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 10 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 6. marca 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Transport — Carriage by air — Regulation No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope
Promet – Zračni promet – Uredba št. 261/2004 – Skupna pravila glede odškodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov – Področje uporabe
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 261/2004, Art. 3(1)(a))
(Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta št. 261/2004, člen 3(1)(a))
SUMMARY — CASE C-173/07 as not applying to the case of an outward and return journey in which passengers who have originally departed from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies travel back to that airport on a flight from an airport located in a nonmember country.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-173/07 uporabilo v situaciji povratnega leta, v kateri se potniki, ki so prvotno odleteli z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, vrnejo na to letali�če na letalu, ki prileti z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države.
The fact that the outward and return flights are the subject of a single booking has no effect on the interpretation of that provision.
Okoli�čina, da je povratni let predmet ene rezervacije, ne vpliva na razlago te določbe.
It follows that a journey out and back cannot be regarded as a single flight.
Iz tega izhaja, da povratnega leta ni mogoče �teti za en in isti let.
Consequently, Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, which provides that the regulation is to apply to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, must be interpreted
Zato se člena 3(1)(a) te uredbe, v skladu s katerim se slednja uporablja za potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja, ne bi
(see paras 40, 47, 53, operative part)
(Glej točke 40, 47, 53 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSHARPSTON delivered on 6 March 2008 1 in the Community.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 6. marca 2008 1
The new regulation covers all commercial flights and addresses flight cancellations and delays in addition to boarding refusals.
Vendar ne velja za potnike, ki odhajajo iz tretje države v državo članico z letalskim prevoznikom, ki ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti.
It provides for compensation for passengers not only when they are denied boarding, but also when their flight is cancelled.
Oberlandesgericht (vi�je deželno sodi�če) Frankfurt am Main (Nemčija) v bistvu spra�uje Sodi�če, ali se let nazaj iz tretje države v državo članico �teje kot del leta z odhodom iz te države članice vsaj takrat, kadar sta bila leta v obe smeri rezervirana istočasno.
Regulation No 261/2004 2provides for compensation to be paid to air passengers in the event of a flight cancellation.
3Razveljavlja Uredbo �t. 259/91 4, katere obseg je bil omejen na zagotavljanje povrnitve stro�kov ali spremembe poti, brezplačne storitve in minimalne ravni od�kodnine za potnike, katerim je bilo zavrnjeno vkrcanje, vendar le za redne lete.
However, it does not apply to passengers departing from a third country to a Member State on a nonCommunity carrier.
Nova ureditev velja za vse komercialne lete in se poleg na zavrnitve vkrcanja nana�a na odpovedi in zamude letov.
The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main (Germany) essentially asks the Court whether a return flight from a third country to a Member State should be regarded as part of a flight departing from that Member State, at least where the outward and return flights were booked at the same time.
Potnikom zagotavlja od�kodnino, ne le kadar jim je zavrnjeno vkrcanje, ampak tudi kadar je njihov let odpovedan.
Recital 1 in the preamble to Regulation No 261/2004 states that Community action in the field of air transport should aim at ensuring a high level of passenger protection and take full account of the requirements of consumer protection in general.
V prvi uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 261/2004 je določeno, da mora ukrepanje Skupnosti na področju zračnega prevoza zagotavljati visoko raven varstva potnikov in na splo�no v celoti upo�tevati zahteve o varstvu potro�nikov.
Regulation No 261/2004
Uredba št. 261/2004
Regulation No 261/2004 aims to increase the protection available to air passengers
Cilj Uredbe �t. 261/2004 je povečanje varnosti za letalske potnike v Skupno-
Recital 6 states that ‘[t]he protection accorded to passengers departing from an airport located in a Member State should be extended to those leaving an airport located in a third country for one situated
Šesta uvodna izjava se glasi: „Varstvo, zagotovljeno potnikom, ki odhajajo z letali�ča v državi članici, je treba raz�iriti na potnike, ki vzletajo z letali�ča v tretji državi in so namenjeni na letali�če države članice,
3 — See in particular recitals 1 to 4 in the preamble.
3 – Glej predvsem uvodne izjave od 1 do 4.
2 — Regulation (EC) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
2 – Uredba (ES) Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 11. februarja 2004 o določitvi skupnih pravil glede od�kodnine in pomoči potnikom v primerih zavrnitve vkrcanja, odpovedi ali velike zamude letov ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (EGS) �t. 295/91 (UL L 46, str. 1).
The regulation came into force on 17 February 2005.
Uredba je začela veljati 17. febru -arja 2005.
which forms the basis of the referring court’s question.
5“ ki je podlaga za vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča.
Article 3, headed ‘Scope’, defines the personal scope of the regulation.
Člen 3 z naslovom „Področje uporabe“ določa, da se uredba uporablja za:
Most language versions use a construction similar to the phrase ‘passengers departing from an airport’, which appears in the English version of Article 3(1)(a) and (b).
V večini jezikovnih različic je zgradba podobna stavku „potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča“, ki se pojavi v angle�ki verziji člena 3(1)(a) in (b).
6The German version however includes the word ‘flight’, rendering the phrase as ‘passengers who embark on a flight at airports …’. 7
6Vendar pa nem�ka različica vključuje besedo „let“, tako da je stavek tak: „potniki, ki se vkrcajo na let na letali�čih […].“ 7
‘(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
„(a) potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja;
As France correctly points out in its written observations, the difference in wording between the German and other language versions does not alter the actual sense of the provision.
Kot Francija pravilno izpostavlja v pisnih stali�čih, razlika v besedilu med nem�ko jezikovno različico in drugimi ne spreminja dejanskega pomena določbe.
Embarkation on a flight is the normal preliminary to departure.
Vkrcanje na let je običajni postopek pred odhodom.
When passengers depart from an airport, it is understood and obvious that they do so by embarking on a flight.
Kadar potniki odhajajo z letali�ča, se razume in je očitno, da to storijo z vkrcanjem na let.
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, unless they received benefits or compensation and were given assistance in that third country, if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier’.
(b) potnike, ki odhajajo z letali�ča na ozemlju tretje države in so namenjeni na letali�če na ozemlju države članice, za katero se Pogodba uporablja, razen če ti potniki prejmejo storitve ali od�kodnino in pomoč v tej tretji državi, če je dejanski letalski prevoznik zadevnega leta iz Skupnosti.“
Under Article 5(1)(c), passengers whose flight is cancelled have, under certain circumstances, the right to compensation by the air carrier in accordance with Article 7.
V skladu s členom 5(1)(c) imajo potniki, katerih let je bil odpovedan, pod določenimi pogoji pravico do od�kodnine, ki jim jo mora plačati letalski prevoznik v skladu s členom 7.
At this point it is appropriate to note a difference between the wording of Article 3(1) in most language versions of the regulation and the German version,
Na tej točki bi bilo primerno pojasniti razliko med besedilom člena 3(1) večine jezikovnih različic in nem�ko različico besedila,
Equivalent formulations are found, for example, in the Dutch, Italian and Portuguese versions.
Primerljivi izrazi so na primer v nizozemski, italijanski in portugalski različici.
5 — A ‘Community carrier’ is defined in Article 2(c) as an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1).
2407/92 z dne 23. julija 1992 o licenciranju letalskih prevoznikov (UL L 240, str. 1).
Directive 90/314/EEC [ 8] applies and who depart from a third-country airport to an airport in a Member State, on flights not operated by Community air carriers,
EMIRATES AIRLINES del ‚paketnega potovanja‘, iz Direktive 90/314/EGS [ 8] in odhajajo z letali�ča tretje države na letali�če države članice na letih, ki jih ne opravljajo letalski prevozniki Skupnosti,
Article 7(1) specifies the amounts of compensation to which passengers are en -titled if they are denied boarding or their flight is cancelled.
Člen 7(1) določa vi�ino od�kodnine, do katere so upravičeni potniki, ki jim je bilo zavrnjeno vkrcanje ali katerih let je odpovedan.
Under Article 7(1)(c), EUR 600 is payable to passengers in respect of flights of more than 3 500 kilometres which are not intra-Community.
V skladu s členom 7(1)(c) se potnikom plača 600 EUR za lete nad 3500 kilometrov, ki niso znotraj Skupnosti.
Article 12(1) states that the regulation should apply without prejudice to a passenger’s rights to further compensation, from which compensation granted under the regulation may be deducted.
Člen 12(1) določa, da ta uredba ne posega v pravice potnika do dodatne od�kodnine, od katere se lahko od�teje od�kodnina, ki je odobrena na podlagi te uredbe.
Finally, Article 17 provides:
Končno, člen 17 določa:
The Montreal Convention, to which the Community is a signatory, modernises and consolidates the Warsaw Convention. 10
Montrealska konvencija, katere podpisnica je Skupnost, posodablja in konsolidira Var�avsko konvencijo.
It seeks, inter alia, to protect the interests of consumers in international carriage by air and to provide equitable, restitutionary compensation. 11
10Njen cilj je med drugim varovanje interesov potro�nikov v mednarodnem letalskem prometu in zagotavljanje pravične od�kodnine. 11
‘The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council by 1 January 2007 on the operation and results of this Regulation, in particular regarding:
„Komisija predloži Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu poročilo o uporabi in rezultatih te uredbe najpozneje do 1. januarja 2007, �e zlasti glede:
Article 1(1) applies the convention to international carriage by aircraft.
Po členu 1(1) se konvencija uporablja za mednarodni letalski prevoz.
Article 1 continues:
Člen 1 se glasi:
8 — Council Directive of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
8 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 13. junija 1990 o paketnem potovanju, organiziranih počitnicah in izletih (UL L 158, str. 59).
9 — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal, 28 May 1999, approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
9 – Konvencija o poenotenju nekaterih pravil za mednarodni letalski prevoz, Montreal, 28. maj 1999, v imenu Skupnosti odobrena s Sklepom Sveta 2001/539/ES z dne 5. aprila 2001 o sklenitvi Konvencije o poenotenju nekaterih pravil za mednarodni letalski prevoz (Montrealska konvencija) s strani Evropske skupnosti (UL L 194, str. 38).
10 — Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to International Carriage by Air, Warsaw, 12 October 1929.
10 – Konvencija o poenotenju nekaterih pravil za mednarodni letalski prevoz, Var�ava, 12. oktober 1929.
— the possible extension of the scope of this Regulation to passengers having a contract with a Community carrier or holding a flight reservation which forms part of a “package tour” to which
možnosti, da se področje uporabe te uredbe raz�iri na potnike, ki imajo pogodbo z letalskim prevoznikom Skupnosti ali rezervacijo za let, ki je
11 — See the second and third recitals in the preamble.
11 – Glej drugo in tretjo uvodno izjavo.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-173/07 to Manila and back, flying with Emirates Airlines (‘Emirates’).
Manilo ter letel z Emirates Airlines (v nadaljevanju: Emirates).
13Emirates is not a Community carrier.
13Emirates ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti.
The return flight from Manila on 12 March 2006 was cancelled.
Let nazaj iz Manile 12. marca 2006 je bil odpovedan. D.
Dr Schenkel flew back to Germany two days later.
Schenkel je letel nazaj v Nemčijo dva dni pozneje.
He subsequently filed a claim with the Amtsgericht (Local Court) Frankfurt am Main for EUR 600 as compensation for the flight cancellation, relying on Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation 261/2004.
Nato je vložil tožbo pri Amtsgericht (okrajno sodi�če) Frankfurt am Main za plačilo od�kodnine v vi�ini 600 EUR zaradi odpovedi leta, sklicujoč se na člena 5(1)(c) in 7(1)(c) Uredbe �t. 261/2004.
Carriage to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed, for the purposes of this Convention, to be one un -divided carriage if it has been regarded by the parties as a single operation, whether it has been agreed upon under the form of a single contract or of a series of contracts …’ 12
Prevoz, ki ga bo drug za drugim opravljalo več prevoznikov, �teje v tej konvenciji kot enoten prevoz, če ga pogodbenice ocenjujejo kot en sam prevoz, ne glede na to, ali je bil dogovorjen z eno samo pogodbo ali z več pogodbami […]“ 12
Whether he is entitled to that compensation turns on whether he is within the personal scope of the regulation as defined in Article 3(1).
Njegova pravica do od�kodnine je odvisna od tega, ali se zanj uporablja uredba, kot je določeno v členu 3(1).
The main proceedings and the reference made
Postopek v glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
Thus, the cancellation related to a flight which began in Germany.
Zato naj bi se odpoved nana�ala na let, ki se je začel v Nemčiji. 14Emirates je zatr-
13 — I use this abbreviation to denote both the company Emirates Airlines and Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland, the party in the main proceedings.
13 – To okraj�avo uporabljam hkrati za družbo Emirates Airlines in za Emirates Airlines Direktion für Deutschland, stranko v postopku v glavni stvari.
14 — In respect of the domestic proceedings, it should be remembered that the German version of Article 3(1) uses the phrase ‘passengers who embark on a flight at airports’.
14 – Upo�tevajoč domač postopek, je treba imeti v mislih, da nem�ka različica člena 3(1) uporablja izraz „potniki, ki se vkrcajo na let na letali�čih“.
12 — This article is almost identical to Article 1 of the Warsaw Convention.
12 – Ta člen je skoraj popolnoma enak členu 1 Var�avske konvencije.
EMIRATES AIRLINES flights booked at the same time were not considered to be one flight.
EMIRATES AIRLINES let nazaj, ki sta bila rezervirana istočasno, ne bi �telo kot en let.
that the outward and return flights were to be regarded as two separate flights.
jeval, da je bilo treba leta tja in nazaj �teti za dva ločena leta.
As a nonCommunity carrier, it was thus not liable to pay compensation for the cancelled return flight from Manila.
Kot letalski prevoznik, ki ni letalski prevoznik Skupnosti, naj torej ne bi bil dolžan plačati od�kodnine za odpovedan let nazaj iz Manile.
On the other hand, the referring court notes that the term ‘flight’ is used elsewhere in the regulation to mean the part of a journey by air made from one place to a particular destination.
Po drugi strani predložitveno sodi�če opozarja, da se izraz „let“ pojavlja drugod v Uredbi in pomeni del letalskega potovanja iz enega kraja v določen namembni kraj.
It considered that the term ‘flight’, as used in (the German version of) Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 261/2004, encompassed both the outward and return flight, at least when both were booked at the same time.
Ugotovilo je, da izraz „let“, uporabljen v členu 3(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 261/2004 (nem�ka različica), vključuje tako let tja kot let nazaj vsaj takrat, ko sta bila oba rezervirana istočasno.
The referring court therefore asks the Court:
Predložitveno sodi�če je zato prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
Emirates appealed to the referring court.
Emirates se je pritožil na predložitveno sodi�če.
‘Is Article 3(1)(a) of [Regulation No 261/2004] to be interpreted as meaning that “a flight” includes the flight from the point of depart- ure to the destination and back, at any rate where the outward and return flights are booked at the same time?’
„Ali je treba člen 3(1)(a) [Uredbe �t. 261/2004] razlagati tako, da ‚let‘ vključuje potovanje z letalom s kraja odhoda v namembni kraj in nazaj vedno, kadar sta leta tja in nazaj rezervirana istočasno?“
It notes that, under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, carriage by successive carriers constitutes one international carriage when regarded by the parties to the contract as a single operation, as when both parts of a round trip are booked simultaneously.
Ker je cilj Uredbe �t. 261/2004 varstvo potro�nikov, se predložitveno sodi�če nagiba k stali�ču, da sta leta tja in nazaj na potovanju en let, kadar sta rezervirana istočasno.