natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Their broad discretion allows the Member States to weigh up different interests and to adopt specific measures, taking account of compliance with limit values as well as of other interests and obligations, such as free movement within the European Union.
Široka diskrecijska pravica jim omogoča tehtanje različnih interesov in sprejetje konkretnih ukrepov, ob upo�tevanju tako mejnih vrednosti kot tudi drugih interesov in obveznosti, kot je prost pretok znotraj Evropske unije.
Thus, the Member States are required only to put in place action plans setting out the measures to be taken in the shortterm in order to reduce the risk of those values being exceeded or to limit the duration of such an occurrence.
Zato bi države članice morale pripraviti zgolj načrte ukrepanja, v katerih bi bili navedeni ukrepi, ki jih je treba kratkoročno izvesti za zmanj�anje nevarnosti preseganja teh vrednosti ali njihovega trajanja.
The Austrian Government points out that the Court has held that the Communitylaw provisions which fix limit values for the protection of human health also confer on the persons concerned a legally enforceable right to compliance with those limit values (Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany).
Avstrijska vlada se sklicuje na to, da je Sodi�če razsodilo, da določbe prava Skupnosti, ki predpisujejo mejne vrednosti zaradi varovanja zdravja ljudi, zainteresiranim osebam dajejo pravico do upo�tevanja teh mejnih vrednosti, ki jo je mogoče uveljavljati pred sodi�čem (zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 30. maja 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-59/89).
However, the Austrian Government takes the view that, while Article 7(3) of Dir -ective 96/62 may have direct effect, it does not follow from this that Article 7(3) establishes a personal right on the part of individuals to have action plans drawn up, since, in its view, that provision covers only the adoption of measures — in the context of national programmes — which are liable to help ensure compliance with limit values.
Če bi člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 lahko imel neposredni učinek, pa po mnenju avstrijske vlade iz tega ne bi moglo izhajati, da ta določba ustvarja – v korist posameznikov – subjektivno pravico do priprave načrta ukrepanja, ker po njenem mnenju stremi samo k sprejetju ukrepov, ki lahko prispevajo k zagotavljanju spo�tovanja mejnih vrednosti v okviru nacionalnih programov.
The Commission submits that it is apparent from the wording of Directive 96/62, in particular the combined provisions of Articles 7(3) and 2(5) and the 12th recital in the preamble to the directive, that the fixing of limit values in respect of particulate matter PM₁₀ serves to protect human health.
Komisija navaja, da iz besedila Direktive 96/62 izhaja, zlasti iz člena 7(3) v povezavi s členom 2, točka 5, in njene dvanajste uvodne izjave, da je namen določitve mejnih vrednosti za drobne trdne delce PM₁₀ varovanje zdravja ljudi.
The Court has established in relation to similar provisions that, whenever the exceeding of limit values was capable of endangering human health, the persons concerned were in a position to rely on those rules in order to assert their rights (Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany, paragraph 16; Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany, paragraph 19; and Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany, paragraph 14).
Glede podobnih določb je Sodi�če razsodilo, da bi v primeru vsakega preseganja mejnih vrednosti, ki bi lahko ogrozila zdravje oseb, slednje morale imeti možnost sklicevanja na te predpise, da bi uveljavile svoje pravice (zgoraj navedene sodbe z dne 30. maja 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-361/88, točka 16, Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-59/89, točka 19, in z dne 17. oktobra 1991 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 14).
According to the Commission, the principles identified in those judgments apply to the action plans provided for under Directive 96/62.
Po mnenju Komisije se načela, razdelana v teh sodbah, uporabijo v načrtih ukrepanja, predvidenih v Direktivi 96/62.
The competent authority is therefore obliged to draw up such plans where the conditions laid down by that directive are satisfied.
Pristojni organi so zavezani pripraviti tak�ne načrte, če so izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v tej direktivi.
It follows that a third party who is affected by the limit values being exceeded is in a position to assert his right to the preparation of an action plan, which is required for the attainment of the objective relating to the limit values set by that directive.
Iz tega izhaja, da lahko tretji, ki je zaradi preseganja mejnih vrednosti prizadet, uveljavlja svojo pravico do priprave načrta ukrepanja, ki je potreben za dosego cilja v zvezi z mejnimi vrednostmi, določenimi v tej direktivi.
With regard to the content of the action plans, the Commission’s response is based on the terms of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62, according to which those action plans must provide for measures ‘to be taken in the short term… in order to reduce [the risk of the limit values being exceeded] and to limit the duration of such an occurrence’.
Komisija glede vsebine načrtov ukrepanja svoj odgovor utemeljuje na členu 7(3) Direktive 96/62, v skladu s katerim morajo biti v načrtih ukrepanja navedeni ukrepi „ki jih je treba kratkoročno izvesti […], da se ta nevarnost zmanj�a in omeji trajanje takega pojava“. Po njenem mnenju ima pristojni organ diskrecijsko pravico
The Commission takes the view that the competent authority has a discretion to take the measures which it considers to be the most appropriate, provided that those measures are designed in the light of what is actually possible and legally proportionate, in such a way as to enable levels to drop back below the prescribed limit values within the shortest possible time.
2008 – ZADEVA C-237/07 za sprejetje ukrepov, za katere meni, da so najprimernej�i, če so slednji oblikovani v okviru dejansko mogočega in pravno sorazmernega, da se vrednosti znižajo pod predpisane meje vrednosti v čim kraj�em času.
The Court’s findings
Odgovor Sodišča
The preparation of action plans
Priprava načrta ukrepanja
By its first question, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht is asking whether an individual can require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan in the case — referred to in Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 — where there is a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded.
S prvim vpra�anjem Bundesverwaltungsgericht spra�uje, ali lahko posameznik od pristojnih nacionalnih organov zahteva pripravo načrta ukrepanja v primeru, določenem v členu 7(3) Direktive 96/62, ko gre za nevarnosti preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti.
That provision places the Member States under a clear obligation to draw up action plans both where there is a risk of the limit values being exceeded and where there is a risk of the alert thresholds being exceeded.
Ta določba državam članicam nalaga jasno obveznost, da pripravijo načrte ukrepanja, tako v primeru nevarnosti preseganja mejnih vrednosti kot tudi alarmnih vrednosti.
That interpretation, which follows from a straightforward reading of Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62, is, moreover, confirmed in the 12th recital in the preamble to the directive.
Ta razlaga, ki izhaja iz preprostega branja člena 7(3) Direktive 96/62, je potrjena v njeni dvanajsti uvodni izjavi.
What is laid down in relation to the limit values applies all the more with regard to the alert thresholds, in respect of which, moreover, Article 2 — which defines the various terms used in the dir -ective — provides that ‘immediate steps shall be taken by the Member States as laid down in this Directive’.
Kar je navedeno glede mejnih vrednosti, velja �ele v zvezi z alarmnimi vrednostmi, za katere je v členu 2 te direktive, v katerem so opredeljeni različni v tej direktivi uporabljeni pojmi, predvideno, da „[morajo] države članice nemudoma ukrepati, kakor določa ta direktiva“.
In addition, the Court has consistently held that individuals are entitled, as against public bodies, to rely on the provisions of a directive which are unconditional and sufficiently precise (see, to that effect, Case 148/78 Ratti [1979] ECR 1629, paragraph 20).
Poleg tega se lahko posamezniki na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča v razmerju do javnih organov sklicujejo na brezpogojne in dovolj natančne določbe direktive (sodba z dne 5. aprila 1979 v zadevi Ratti, 148/78, Recueil, str. 1629, točka 20).
It is for the competent national authorities and courts to interpret national
Pristojni nacionalni organi in sodi�ča morajo razlagati določbe nacionalnega prava
JANECEK law, as far as possible, in a way that is compatible with the purpose of that dir -ective (see, to that effect, Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8).
JANECEK kar najbolj �iroko, da so v skladu s cilji direktive (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. novembra 1990 v zadevi Marleasing, C-106/89, Recueil, str.
Where such an interpretation is not possible, they must disapply the rules of national law which are incompatible with the directive concerned.
I-4135, točka 8). Kadar ni mogoče podati take razlage, se ne sme uporabiti določba nacionalnega prava, ki ni v skladu z direktivo.
As the Court of Justice has noted on numerous occasions, it is incompatible with the binding effect which Article 249 EC ascribes to a directive to exclude, in principle, the possibility of the obligation imposed by that directive being relied on by persons concerned.
Kot je Sodi�če že večkrat navedlo, ne bi bilo združljivo z zavezujočim značajem, ki ga direktivi daje člen 249 ES, da se načeloma izključi možnost zadevnih oseb, da se sklicujejo na obveznost, ki jo slednja nalaga.
That consideration applies particularly in respect of a directive which is intended to control and reduce atmospheric pollution and which is designed, therefore, to protect public health.
Ta preudarek velja zlasti za direktivo, katere cilj je zagotoviti nadzor in zmanj�anje onesnaženosti zraka in s tem varovanje javnega zdravja.
Thus, the Court has held that, whenever the failure to observe the measures required by the directives which relate to air quality and drinking water, and which are 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 those directives (see Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany; Case C-59/89 Commission v Germany; and Case C-58/89 Commission v Germany).
Sodi�če je tako presodilo, da morajo zadevne osebe v vseh primerih, ko niso upo�tevani ukrepi, navedeni v direktivah o kakovosti zraka in pitni vodi, katerih namen je varovanje javnega zdravja, in bi to lahko ogrozilo zdravje posameznikov, imeti možnost sklicevanja na obvezujoče določbe iz teh direktiv (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 30. maja 1991 Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-361/88, Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-59/89, ter z dne 17. oktobra 1991 Komisija proti Nemčiji).
It follows from the foregoing that the natural or legal persons directly concerned by a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded must be in a position to require the competent authorities to draw up an action plan where such a risk exists, if necessary by bringing an action before the competent courts.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da morajo fizične in pravne osebe, ki jih nevarnost preseganja alarmnih ali mejnih vrednosti neposredno zadeva, pri pristojnih organih imeti možnost zahtevati pripravo načrta ukrepanja, če obstaja taka nevarnost.
The fact that those persons may have other courses of action available to them — in particular, the power to require that the competent authorities lay down specific measures to reduce pollution, which, as indicated by the referring court, is provided for under German law — is irrelevant in that regard.
Dejstvo, da imajo ti posamezniki na voljo druge možnosti za ukrepanje, zlasti pa da od pristojnih organov lahko zahtevajo odredbo konkretnih ukrepov za zmanj�anje onesnaževanja, kot je predvideno v nem�kem pravu, v tej zvezi ni pomembno.
Directive 96/62 does not place any restrictions on the measures which may be adopted pursuant to other provisions of national law; moreover, it contains wording that is quite specific with regard to planning for the purposes, as stated in the 12th recital in the preamble to the directive, of protecting the environment ‘as a whole’, taking account of all the factors to be considered, such as, in particular, the requirements for the operation of industrial installations or travel.
Direktiva 96/62 po eni strani namreč ne vsebuje nobenih omejitev glede ukrepov, ki jih je v skladu z nacionalnimi predpisi mogoče sprejeti, po drugi strani pa vsebuje precej specifično besedilo, glede, kot se glasi dvanajsta uvodna izjava, varovanja okolja „kot celote“ in ob upo�tevanju vseh dejavnikov, ki jih je treba vključiti, zlasti zahtev glede delovanja industrijskih obratov ali prometa.
By its second and third questions, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht is asking whether the competent national authorities are obliged to lay down measures which, in the short term, would ensure that the limit value is attained, or whether they can confine themselves to taking measures to ensure a reduction in instances of the limit value being exceeded or limits on their duration and which are, consequently, liable to make it possible for the situation to be improved gradually.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 razlagati tako, da morajo posamezniki v primeru obstoja nevarnosti preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti, ki jih neposredno zadeva, 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.
According to Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62, action plans must include 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’.
V skladu s členom 7(3) Direktive 96/62 morajo biti v načrtih ukrepanja navedeni ukrepi, „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“.
It follows from that very wording that the Member States are not obliged to take measures to ensure that those limit values and/or alert thresholds are never exceeded.
Iz tega besedila neposredno izhaja, da države članice niso zavezane sprejeti ukrepov, da se zagotovi, da te mejne vrednosti niso nikoli presežene.
On the contrary, it is apparent from the broad logic of the directive — which seeks an integrated reduction of pollution — that it is for the Member States to take measures capable of reducing to a minimum the risk of the limit values and/or alert thresholds being exceeded and the duration of such an occurrence, taking into account all the material circumstances and opposing interests.
Nasprotno iz strukture direktive, katere cilj je integrirano zmanj�anje onesnaženosti zraka, izhaja, da morajo države članice sprejeti ukrepe, ki lahko zmanj�ajo nevarnost preseganja in njegovo trajanje na najmanj�o možno mero, ob upo�tevanju vseh takratnih okoli�čin in obstoječih interesov.
It must be noted in this regard that, while the Member States thus have a discretion, Article 7(3) of Directive 96/62 includes limits on the exercise of that discretion which may be relied upon before the national courts (see, to that effect, Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 59), relating to the adequacy of the measures which must be included in the action plan with the aim of reducing the risk of the limit values and/or alert thresholds being exceeded and the duration of such an occurrence, taking into account the balance which must be maintained between that objective and the various opposing public and private interests.
Ob teh stali�čih je treba navesti, da imajo države članice tako sicer diskrecijsko pravico, vendar člen 7(3) Direktive 96/62 vsebuje meje izvr�evanja te diskrecijske pravice, ki jih je mogoče uveljavljati pred nacionalnimi sodi�či (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 24. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Kraaijeveld in drugi, C-72/95, Recueil, str. I-5403, točka 59), ki se nana�ajo na primernost ukrepov, ki morajo biti navedeni v načrtu ukrepanja, z namenom zmanj�evanja nevarnosti preseganja in omejitvijo njegovega trajanja, ob upo�tevanju ravnovesja, ki ga je treba zagotoviti med temi cilji in različnimi zadevnimi javnimi in zasebnimi interesi.
Therefore, the answer to the second and third questions must be that the Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, only 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 limit values 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.
Zato je treba na drugo in tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da 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 vrednosti 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.
Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a position 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 Sveta 96/62/ES z dne 27. septembra 1996 o ocenjevanju in upravljanju kakovosti zunanjega zraka, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1882/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. septembra 2003, je treba razlagati tako, da morajo posamezniki v primeru obstoja nevarnosti preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti, ki jih neposredno zadeva, 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.
The Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, only 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 limit values 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.
Države članice imajo – pod nadzorom nacionalnega sodišča – samo obveznost, da v okviru načrta ukrepanja in kratkoročno sprejmejo take ukrepe, ki lahko zmanjšajo nevarnost preseganja mejnih ali alarmnih vrednosti na najmanjšo možno mero, ob upoštevanju dejanskih okoliščin in vseh obstoječih interesov, ter zagotavljajo postopno vračanje na raven pod temi vrednostmi ali pragovi.
Case C-127/08
Zadeva C-127/08
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo High Court (Irska))
(Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State — Family members who are nationals of nonmember countries — Nationals of nonmember countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens)
„Direktiva 2004/38/ES – Pravica državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – Družinski člani, ki so državljani tretjih držav – Državljani tretjih držav, ki so vstopili v državo članico gostiteljico, preden so postali zakonci državljana Unije“
View of Advocate General Poiares Maduro of 11 June 2008 . . . . . . . . . .
Stali�če generalnega pravobranilca M.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 25 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poiaresa Madura predstavljeno 11. junija 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Citizenship of the European Union — Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38 — Right of entry and residence of nationals of nonmember countries who are family members of Community nationals
Državljanstvo Evropske unije – Pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – Direktiva 2004/38 – Pravica državljanov tretjih držav, družinskih članov državljanov Skupnosti, do vstopa in prebivanja
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38)
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38)
SUMMARY — CASE C-127/08
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-127/08
Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Right of residence of family members — Right of residence of a spouse who is a national of a nonmember country
Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Pravica družinskih članov do prebivanja – Pravica zakonca, ki je državljan tretje države, do prebivanja
Citizenship of the European Union — Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Competence of the Community to adopt the necessary measures to ensure freedom of movement of Union citizens
Državljanstvo Evropske unije – Prosto gibanje oseb – Delavci – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Svoboda opravljanja storitev – Pristojnost Skupnosti za sprejetje ukrepov, potrebnih za zagotavljanje prostega gibanja državljanov Unije
(Arts 3(1)(c) EC, 18(2) EC, 40 EC, 44 EC and 52 EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38)
(členi 3(1)(c) ES, 18(2) ES, 40 ES, 44 ES in 52 ES; Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38)
Citizenship of the European Union — Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States — Directive 2004/38 — Beneficiaries
Državljanstvo Evropske unije – Pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – Direktiva 2004/38 – Upravičenci
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 3(1))
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38, člen 3(1))
the directive applies to all Union citizens who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national, and to their family members as defined in point 2 of Article 2 of the directive who accompany them or join them in that Member State.
Unije, ki se preselijo ali prebivajo v državi članici, razen v tisti državi, katere državljani so, in za njihove družinske člane, kot so opredeljeni v členu 2(2) te direktive, ki jih spremljajo ali se jim pridružijo v tej državi članici.
The definition of family members in point 2 of Article 2 of Directive 2004/38 does not distinguish according to whether or not they have already resided lawfully in another Member State.
V opredelitvi družinskih članov iz člena 2(2) Direktive 2004/38 pa ni razlikovanja glede na to, ali so že zakonito prebivali v drugi državi članici ali ne.