natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the emission limit values in respect of particulate matter PM10or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a pos -ition to require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national law, those persons may have other courses of action available to them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat atmospheric pollution.
Člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo �t. 1882/2003, je treba razlagati tako, da morajo posamezniki v primeru obstoja nevarnosti preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih imisijskih vrednosti za drobne trdne delce PM₁₀, ki jih neposredno zadevajo, pri pristojnih nacionalnih organih imeti možnost zahtevati pripravo načrta ukrepanja, čeprav imajo na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov na voljo druge možnosti za ukrepanje, da od teh organov zahtevajo sprejetje ukrepov za boj proti onesnaževanju zraka.
In the application of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, the Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, to take such measures — in the context of an action plan and in the short term — as are capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the emission limit values in respect of particulate matter PM10 or alert thresholds may be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances and all opposing interests.
Ob uporabi člena 7(3) Direktive 96/62 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo �t. 1882/2003, imajo države članice – pod nadzorom nacionalnega sodi�ča – samo obveznost, da v okviru načrta ukrepanja in kratkoročno sprejmejo take ukrepe, ki lahko zmanj�ajo nevarnost preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih imisijskih vrednosti za drobne trdne delce PM10 na najmanj�o možno mero, ob upo�tevanju dejanskih okoli�čin in vseh obstoječih interesov, ter zagotavljajo postopno vračanje na raven pod temi vrednostmi ali pragovi.
(see para. 42, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 42 in točko 1 izreka.)
(see para. 47, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 47 in točko 2 izreka.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 25. julija 2008 *
2008 — CASE C-237/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-237/07 generalni pravobranilec: J.
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: B. Fülop, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 June 2008, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Fülop, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 5. junija 2008, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
JANECEK gives the following
JANECEK izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 7(3) Direktive Sveta 96/62/ES z dne 27. septembra 1996 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka (UL L 296, str.
55), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 284, p.
55), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) �t. 1882/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. septembra 2003 (UL L 284, str.
1; ‘Directive 96/62’).
1, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 96/62).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Mr Janecek and the Freistaat Bayern concerning an application for an order requiring the Freistaat Bayern to draw up an air quality action plan in the Landshuter Allee district in Munich, where the applicant lives, the plan in question to include the measures to be taken in the short term to ensure compliance with the limit set by Community legislation in respect of ambient air emissions of particulate matter PM₁₀.
Ta predlog je bil podan v okviru spora med D. Janeckom in Freistaat Bayern glede zahteve, da se slednjo zaveže k pripravi načrta ukrepanja za ohranjanje čistosti zraka na področju Landshuter Allee v Münchnu, kjer tožeča stranka živi, v katerem so določeni ukrepi, ki bi jih bilo kratkoročno treba izvesti, da bi se ohranjala na ravni Skupnosti dovoljena meja imisijskih vrednosti za drobne trdne delce PM₁₀ v zunanjem zraku.
2008 — CASE C-237/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-237/07
According to the 12th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/62:
V okviru dvanajste uvodne izjave Direktive 96/62:
‘… in order to protect the environment as a whole and human health, it is necessary that Member States take action when limit values are exceeded in order to comply with these values within the time fixed’.
„[…] morajo države članice za varovanje okolja kot celote in zdravje ljudi, če so mejne vrednosti presežene, ukrepati tako, da dosežejo te vrednosti v določenem času“.
Annex I to Directive 96/62 contains a list of atmospheric pollutants to be taken into consideration in the assessment and management of ambient air quality.
Priloga I k Direktivi 96/62 vsebuje seznam atmosferskih onesnaževal, ki jih je treba upo�tevati pri ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka.
Item 3 in that list refers to ‘[f]ine particulate matter such as soot (including [PM]₁₀ )’.
V točki 3 seznama so navedeni „drobni trdni delci, kakor so saje (vključno s PM₁₀ )“.
Article 7 of Directive 96/62, headed ‘Improvement of ambient air quality — General requirements’, provides:
Člen 7 Direktive 96/62, naslovljen „Izbolj�anje kakovosti zunanjega zraka [–] Splo�ne zahteve“, določa:
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the limit values.
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev skladnosti z mejnimi vrednostmi.
Member States shall draw up action plans indicating the measures to be taken in the short term where there is a risk of the limit values and/or alert thresholds being exceeded, in order to reduce that risk and to limit the duration of such an occurrence. …’
Države članice pripravijo načrte ukrepanja, v katerih navedejo ukrepe, ki jih je treba kratkoročno izvesti, če obstaja nevarnost preseganja mejnih in/ali alarmnih vrednosti, da se ta nevarnost zmanj�a in omeji trajanje takega pojava. […]“
Article 8 of the directive, headed ‘Measures applicable in zones where levels are higher than the limit value’, provides:
Člen 8 te direktive, naslovljen „Ukrepi za območja, kjer so ravni onesnaženosti zunanjega zraka vi�je od mejne vrednosti“, določa:
Member States shall draw up a list of zones and agglomerations in which the levels of one or more pollutants are higher than the limit value plus the margin of tolerance.
Države članice pripravijo seznam območij in strnjenih naselij, kjer so ravni enega ali več onesnaževal vi�je od vsote mejne vrednosti in sprejemljivega preseganja.
Where no margin of tolerance has been fixed for a specific pollutant, zones and agglomerations in which the level of that pollutant exceeds the limit value shall be treated in the same way as the zones and agglomerations referred to in the first subparagraph, and paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall apply to them.
Če sprejemljivo preseganje za posamezno onesnaževalo ni določeno, je treba območja in strnjena naselja, v katerih raven takega onesnaževala presega mejne vrednosti, obravnavati enako kakor območja in strnjena naselja, na katera se nana�a prvi pododstavek, zanje pa se uporabljajo odstavki 3, 4 in 5.
Member States shall draw up a list of zones and agglomerations in which the levels of one or more pollutants are between the limit value and the limit value plus the margin of tolerance.
Države članice pripravijo seznam območij in strnjenih naselij, v katerih so ravni enega ali več onesnaževal v razponu med mejno vrednostjo in vsoto mejne vrednosti in sprejemljivega preseganja.
In the zones and agglomerations referred to in paragraph 1, Member States shall take measures to ensure that a plan or programme is prepared or implemented for attaining the limit value within the specific time-limit.
Države članice za območja in strnjena naselja iz odstavka 1 sprejmejo ukrepe in tako zagotovijo, da se pripravi ali izvaja načrt ali program, s katerim se v določenem roku doseže mejna vrednost.
The said plan or programme, which must be made available to the public, shall incorporate at least the information listed in Annex IV.
Omenjeni načrt ali program, ki mora biti dostopen javnosti, vsebuje najmanj informacije, na�tete v Prilogi IV.
In the zones and agglomerations referred to in paragraph 1, where the level of more than one pollutant is higher than the limit values, Member States shall provide an integrated plan covering all the pollutants concerned.
Države članice za območja in strnjena naselja iz odstavka 1, v katerih je raven več kot enega onesnaževala vi�ja od mejne vrednosti, pripravijo celovit načrt za vsa ta onesnaževala.
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p.
V členu 5(1) Direktive Sveta 1999/30/ES z dne 22. aprila 1999 o mejnih vrednostih žveplovega dioksida, du�ikovega dioksida in du�ikovih oksidov, trdnih delcev in svinca v zunanjem zraku (UL L 163, str.
41) provides:
41) je določeno:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM₁₀ in ambient air, as assessed in accordance with Article 7, do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III as from the dates specified therein.
„Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, s katerimi zagotovijo, da koncentracije PM₁₀ v zunanjem zraku, ocenjene v skladu s členom 7, ne presegajo mejnih vrednosti iz oddelka I Priloge III od datumov, ki so tam določeni.
The margins of tolerance laid down in Section I of Annex III shall apply in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 96/62/EC.’
Sprejemljiva preseganja iz oddelka I Priloge III se uporabljajo v skladu s členom 8 Direktive 96/62/ES.“
Stage 1, section 1 of Annex III to Directive 1999/30 sets out, in a table, the limit values for particulate matter PM₁₀.
V prilogi III, stopnja 1, točka 1, Direktive 1999/30 so v tabeli navedene mejne vrednosti za trdne delce PM₁₀.
3830), as amended by the Law of 25 June 2005 (BGBl I, p.
3830), kot je bila spremenjena z zakonom z dne 25. junija 2005 (BGBl I, str.
1865; ‘the Federal Law on combating pollution’).
1865, v nadaljevanju: zvezni zakon o varstvu pred imisijami).
Paragraph 45 of the Federal Law on combating pollution, headed ‘Improvement of air quality’, provides:
V členu 45 zveznega zakona o varstvu pred imisijami, naslovljenem „Izbolj�anje kakovosti zraka“, je določeno:
Paragraph 47 of that Law, headed ‘Air quality plans, action plans, Land regulations’, provides:
Člen 47 tega zakona, naslovljen „Načrti za zagotavljanje kakovosti zraka, načrti ukrepanja, deželne uredbe“, določa:
Action plans may be incorporated in an air quality plan pursuant to subparagraph 1.
Ukrepi, določeni v načrtu ukrepanja, morajo biti taki, da zmanj�ajo tveganje preseganja vrednosti oziroma obdobje, v katerem so vrednosti presežene.
The emission limit values referred to in Paragraph 47 of the Federal Law on combating pollution are fixed in the 22nd regulation for the implementation of that Law, which provides, in Paragraph 4(1):
Mejne imisijske vrednosti, navedene v členu 47 zveznega zakona o varstvu pred imisijami, so določene v dvaindvajseti izvedbeni uredbi tega zakona, ki v členu 4(1) določa:
‘The average emission limit value over a 24-hour period in respect of PM₁₀, having regard to the protection of human health, is 50 µg/m3, which may be exceeded 35 times in a calendar year …’
„Mejna imisijska vrednost za PM₁₀ v obdobju 24 ur, ob upo�tevanju varovanja zdravja ljudi, zna�a 50 µg/m3 pri 35 dovoljenih preseganjih v koledarskem letu […]“
Measurements taken at that station have shown that, in 2005 and 2006, the limit value fixed for emissions of particulate matter PM₁₀ was exceeded much more than 35 times, even though that is the maximum number of instances permitted under the Federal Law on combating pollution.
V skladu z rezultati meritev v tej merilni postaji je bila mejna imisijska vrednost, določena za drobne trdne delce PM10, v letih 2005 in 2006 prekoračena bistveno več kot 35-krat, čeprav zvezni zakon o varstvu pred imisijami dopu�ča največ 35 preseganj.
It is common ground that an air quality action plan exists in respect of the city of Munich, that action plan having been declared mandatory on 28 December 2004.
Ni sporno, da za področje mesta München obstaja načrt za ohranitev kakovosti zraka, ki je bil 28. decembra 2004 razgla�en za zavezujočega.
However, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an action before the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Munich for an order requiring the Freistaat Bayern to draw up an air quality action plan in the Landshuter Allee district, so as to determine the measures to be taken in the shortterm in order to ensure compliance with the maximum permitted number of instances — 35 per year — of the emission limit value for particulate matter PM₁₀ being exceeded.
Vendar je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari pri Verwaltungsgericht München vložila tožbo z zahtevkom, naj se Freistaat Bayern obveže k pripravi načrta ukrepanja za ohranjanje kakovosti zraka na področju Landshuter Allee, da bi se določili ukrepi, ki jih je treba kratkoročno izvesti, da se ohrani dopustna meja 35 preseganj mejnih vrednosti, določenih za drobne trdne delce PM₁₀. Verwaltungsgericht je tožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno.
On appeal, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) took a different view, holding that the residents concerned may require the competent authorities to draw up an action plan, but that they are not entitled to insist that it must include the particular measures that would guarantee compliance in the shortterm with the emission limit values for particulate matter PM₁₀.
Verwaltungsgerichthof, pri katerem je bila vložena pritožba, je sprejelo drugačno stali�če in presodilo, da zadevni prebivalci od pristojnih organov lahko zahtevajo pripravo načrta ukrepanja, vendar ne morejo zahtevati, da so v njem navedeni primerni ukrepi, da se kratkoročno zagotovi spo�tovanje mejnih imisijskih vrednosti za drobne trdne delce PM10.
According to the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, the national authorities are required only to ensure that such a plan pursues that objective to the extent to which it is possible and proportionate for it to do so.
Nacionalni organi naj bi bili po mnenju tega sodi�ča zavezani k temu, da se prepričajo, da se temu cilju, kolikor je mogoče in v sorazmerju s tak�nim načrtom, tudi sledi. Zato je Verwaltungsgerichtshof odredilo, naj Freistaat Bayern pripravi načrt ukrepanja ob upo�tevanju teh zahtev.
According to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, the applicant in the main proceedings cannot rely on any entitlement to have an action plan drawn up pursuant to Paragraph 47(2) of the Federal Law on combating pollution.
Po mnenju tega sodi�ča tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari iz člena 47(2) zveznega zakona o varstvu pred imisijami ne more izpeljati zahtevka za pripravo načrta ukrepanja.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht takes the view, moreover, that neither the spirit nor the letter of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 confers a personal right to have an action plan drawn up.
Poleg tega niti iz besedila člena 7(3) Direktive 96/62 niti iz njegovega namena ni mogoče izpeljati subjektivne pravice do priprave takega načrta.
The referring court states that, even though the — albeit unlawful — failure to adopt an action plan does not, under national law, prejudice the rights of the applicant in the main proceedings, he is not without the means to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari z opustitvijo – četudi protipravno – priprave načrta ukrepanja sicer ni bila omejena v svojih pravicah v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, vendar ima vseeno na voljo sredstvo, ki zagotavlja spo�tovanje predpisov.
Protection against the harmful effects of particulate matter PM₁₀ should
Varstvo pred �kodljivimi učinki drobnih trdnih
2008 — CASE C-237/07 be secured by measures that are independent of such a plan, which the persons concerned are entitled to require the competent authorities to implement.
2008 – ZADEVA C-237/07 delcev PM₁₀ bi se namreč zagotovilo z ukrepi, ki so neodvisni od tak�nega načrta, zadevne osebe pa bi imele zahtevek, da pristojni organi te ukrepe izvedejo.
Thus, effective protection is assured, under the same conditions as those that would result from the drawing-up of an action plan.
S tem bi bilo zagotovljeno učinkovito varstvo pod pogoji, ki ustrezajo tem, ki bi izhajali iz priprave načrta ukrepanja.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht recognises, however, that there is a school of thought which draws different conclusions from the Community rules in question, namely that the third parties affected are entitled to have action plans drawn up, which appears to be confirmed by the judgment in Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2607.
Vendar Bundesverwaltungsgericht priznava, da del doktrine iz spornih določb izpeljuje drugačne zaključke, v skladu s katerimi naj bi zadevne tretje osebe imele zahtevek za pripravo načrta ukrepanja, kar bi bilo v skladu s sodbo z dne 30. maja 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (C-59/89, Recueil, str. I-2607).
Can an action plan be limited, on the principle of “one step at a time”, to measures which, while not
Ali se lahko načrt postopno omeji na ukrepe,
JANECEK guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, nevertheless contribute in the short term to improvements in ambient air quality?’
JANECEK ki sicer ne zagotavljajo ohranjanja mejne vrednosti, kljub vsemu pa kratkoročno prispevajo k izbolj�anju kakovosti zraka?
The applicant in the main proceedings submits that, whenever the failure of national authorities to comply with the requirements of a directive designed to protect public health could endanger human health, the persons concerned must be in a position to rely on the mandatory rules included in that directive (see, as regards Council Directive 80/779/EEC of 15 July 1980 on air quality limit values and guide values for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulates (OJ 1980 L 229, p.
Tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari trdi, da bi morale v vseh primerih, v katerih bi neupo�tevanje določb Direktive o varovanju javnega zdravja s strani nacionalnih organov ogrozilo zdravje, zadevne osebe imeti pravico sklicevanja na obvezujoča pravila te direktive (glej v zvezi z Direktivo Sveta 80/779/EGS z dne 15. julija 1980 o mejnih in priporočenih vrednostih kakovosti zraka za žveplov dioksid in suspendirane delce (UL L 229, str.
30), Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567, paragraph 16; and, as regards Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ 1975 L 194, p.
30) sodbo z dne 30. maja 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-361/88, Recueil, str. I-2567, točka 16, in v zvezi z Direktivo Sveta 75/440/EGS z dne 16. junija 1975 o zahtevah glede kakovosti povr�inske vode za odvzem pitne vode v državah članicah (UL L 194, str.
26) and Council Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the methods of measurement and frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ 1979 L 271, p.
26) in Direktivo Sveta 79/869/EGS z dne 9. oktobra 1979 o merilnih metodah ter pogostnosti vzorčenja in analize povr�inske vode, namenjene za oskrbo s pitno vodo v državah članicah (UL L 271, str.
44), Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-4983, paragraph 14).
44) sodbo z dne 17. oktobra 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-58/89, Recueil, str.
Taking the view that Directive 96/62 is designed to protect human health, the applicant in the main proceedings maintains that Article 7(3) of that directive constitutes a mandatory rule which requires an action plan to be drawn up even where there is merely a risk that a limit value may be exceeded.
Tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari meni, da je cilj Direktive 96/62 varovanje zdravja ljudi, in trdi, da člen 7(3) te direktive pomeni obvezujoče pravilo, ki predpisuje pripravo načrta ukrepanja že takrat, ko obstaja zgolj nevarnost preseganja mejnih imisijskih vrednosti.
The obligation to draw up such a plan in that situation, the existence of which is not disputed in the main proceedings, is therefore a rule upon which the applicant is in a position to rely, on the basis of the caselaw referred to in the previous paragraph of the present judgment.
Obveznost priprave načrta ob teh predpostavkah, ki v postopku v glavni stvari niso sporne, bi zato pomenila pravilo, na katero bi se lahko sklicevala na podlagi sodne prakse, navedene v predhodni točki te sodbe.
With regard to the content of the action plan, the applicant in the main proceedings submits that it must lay down all the appropriate measures to ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is kept to a minimum.
Glede vsebine načrta ukrepanja tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari navaja, da je morala predvideti vse primerne ukrepe, da bi preseganje mejnih vrednosti trajalo čim kraj�i čas.
That follows, in particular, from the broad logic of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 — which states clearly that action plans must be drawn up where there is a mere risk of those values being exceeded — and Article 8(3) of the directive, according to which, where limit values have already been exceeded, the Member States must take measures to ensure that a plan or programme is prepared or implemented for attaining the limit value within the specific time-limit.
To naj bi izhajalo zlasti iz strukture člena 7(3) Direktive 96/62, v katerem naj bi bilo jasno navedeno, da je treba načrte ukrepanja pripraviti že takrat, ko obstaja nevarnost preseganja teh vrednosti, in člena 8(3) te direktive, v skladu s katerim morajo države članice, ko so mejne vrednosti že presežene, sprejeti ukrepe za pripravo ali izvedbo načrta ali programa, na podlagi katerega je mogoče doseči mejno vrednost v okviru določenega roka.
The Netherlands Government submits that Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 does not confer on third parties a personal right to have an action plan drawn up.
Nizozemska vlada navaja, da člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 tretjim ne daje pravice do priprave načrta ukrepanja.
The Member States, it argues, have a wide discretion in respect of both the adoption of action plans and the determination of their content.
Države članice naj bi imele �iroko diskrecijsko pravico tako za sprejetje načrta ukrepanja kot tudi za določitev njegove vsebine.
It follows, the Netherlands Government continues, from Article 7(3) that the Community legislature intended to leave to the Member States the power to put in place an action plan and to take the ancillary measures which they consider necessary and proportionate in order to attain the result envisaged.
Iz iste določbe izhaja, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti hotel pustiti državam članicam pristojnost priprave načrta ukrepanja in sprejetja potrebnih ukrepov, za katere so države članice menile, da so potrebni in primerni za doseganje želenih rezultatov.
Accordingly, it continues, Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 does not impose any obligation on the Member States as to the result to be achieved.
Zaradi tega naj člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 državam članicam ne bi nalagal nobene obveznosti za dosego teh rezultatov.