natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— may, however, as the first stage in a consent procedure carried out in several stages, require an environmental impact assessment if and in so far as it limits the discretion of the competent national authorities in subsequent consent pro- cedures, and between public authorities and a private undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking become operational at an airport with a runway more than 2100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended, and the construction of a control tower with a view to permitting large aircraft to fly 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date on which the undertaking becomes operational at that airport:
– ampak lahko kot prva stopnja večstopenjskega postopka izdaje soglasja zahteva presojo vplivov na okolje, če in kolikor omejuje pravico pristojnih nacionalnih organov do proste presoje v kasnej�em postopku izdaje soglasja, in bila opravljena v zvezi z izgradnjo vzletne steze – ne da bi bila ta podalj�ana –, in v zvezi z gradnjo nadzornega stolpa, da bi se omogočili leti �irokotrupnih letal 24 ur na dan 365 dni v letu, ter ki predvideva nočne in dnevne lete od takrat, ko to podjetje začne delati na letali�ču,
— does not constitute a project within the meaning of the EIA directive,
– vsebovane delne projekte povezuje v skupni projekt, katerega vplive je treba skupno upo�tevati v okviru izdaje delnih soglasij za izvedbo.
I therefore suggest that the Court give the following answers:
Sodi�ču zato predlagam, naj odgovori, kot je navedeno v nadaljevanju.
The effects of modifications to the infrastructure of an airport on the environment for the purposes 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 include the increase in the airport’s activity which is thereby sought.
Vplivi spremembe infrastrukture letali�ča na okolje v smislu Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje vključujejo s tem načrtovano povečanje dejavnosti letali�ča.
Modifications to the infrastructure of an existing airport with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more are to be regarded as the construction of an airport within the meaning of point 7 of Annex I to Directive 85/337 and are therefore necessarily to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(1) of that directive if they are equivalent to the construction of a new airport in terms of their effects on the environment.
Spremembo infrastrukture obstoječega letali�ča z vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več je treba �teti za gradnjo letali�ča v smislu Priloge I, točka 7, k Direktivi 85/337 in mora biti zato v skladu s členom 4(1) te direktive obvezno predmet presoje vplivov na okolje, če jo je glede na njene vplive na okolje mogoče enačiti z novogradnjo.
If modifications to the infrastructure of an existing airport with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more are not to be treated as equivalent to the construction of a new airport, they must be assessed with regard to their effects on the environment pursuant to Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 and point 7 of Annex I and point 12 of Annex II thereto if they are likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature, size or local factors.
Če spremembe infrastrukture obstoječega letali�ča z vzletno stezo z osnovno dolžino 2100 m ali več ni mogoče enačiti z novogradnjo, je treba v skladu s členom 4(2) Direktive 85/337 ter Prilogo I, točka 7, in Prilogo II, točka 12, k Direktivi 85/337 presoditi njene vplive na okolje, če bo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivala na okolje.
The first question:
Prvo vpra�anje
An agreement between public authorities and a private undertaking, signed with a view to having that undertaking become operational at an airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length, featuring an exact description of work on the infrastructure to be carried out in relation to the adaptation of the runway, without its being extended, and the construction of a control tower with a view to permitting large aircraft to fly 24 hours per day and 365 days per year,
Sporazum med državo in zasebnim podjetjem, ki je bil podpisan, da bi to podjetje začelo delati na območju letali�ča z vzletno stezo, dalj�o od 2100 m, ki vsebuje natančen opis infrastrukturnih del, ki naj bi bila opravljena v zvezi z izgradnjo vzletne steze – ne da bi bila ta podalj�ana –, in v zvezi z gradnjo nadzornega stolpa, da bi se omogočili leti �irokotrupnih letal 24 ur na dan 365 dni v letu, ter ki predvideva tako nočne kot dnevne lete od takrat, ko to podjetje začne delati na letali�ču,
— may, however, as the first stage in a consent procedure carried out in several stages, require an environmental impact assessment if and in so far as it limits the discretion of the competent national authorities in subsequent consent procedures, and
– ampak lahko kot prva stopnja večstopenjskega postopka izdaje soglasja zahteva presojo vplivov na okolje, če in kolikor omejuje pravico pristojnih nacionalnih organov do proste presoje v kasnej�em postopku izdaje soglasja, in
— links together the subprojects included as an overall project whose effects are to be taken into consideration as a whole in the context of the development consents for parts thereof.
– vsebovane delne projekte povezuje v skupni projekt, katerega vplive je treba skupno upo�tevati v okviru izdaje delnih soglasij za izvedbo.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)28 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 28. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (Belgium), made by decision of 14 December 2006, received at the Court on 4 January 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-2/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Belgija) z odločbo z dne 14. decembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 4. januarja 2007, v postopku
Paul Abraham and Others v
Paul Abraham in drugi, proti
2008 — CASE C-2/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-2/07
Advocate General: J. Kokott, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 18 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Kokott, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja enote, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 18. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— Région wallonne, by F. Haumont, avocat,
– za Valonsko regijo F. Haumont, odvetnik,
— the Czech Government, by T. Boček, acting as Agent,
– za če�ko vlado T. Boček, zastopnik,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 29 November 2007,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti M. Konstantinidis in J.-B. Laignelot, zastopnika po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 29. novembra 2007,
2008 — CASE C-2/07 gives the following
2008 – ZADEVA C-2/07 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation 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 (OJ 1985 L 175, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje (UL L 175, str.
40; ‘Directive 85/337’), in the version existing prior to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p.
40, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 85/337), v različici, ki je obstajala pred objavo Direktive Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997 (UL L 73, str.
5; ‘Directive 97/11’), and in particular point 7 of Annex I and point 12 of Annex II thereto.
5, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 97/11) zlasti točke 7 njene priloge I in točke 12 njene priloge II.
Pursuant to Article 1(1) thereof, Directive 85/337, applicable here in its original version, concerns the assessment of the environmental effects of those public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.
Direktiva 85/337, ki se v tem primeru uporabi v izvirni različici, se v skladu z njenim členom 1(1) nana�a na presojo vplivov na okolje tistih javnih in zasebnih projektov, ki bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 states:
V skladu s členom 1(2) te direktive pomeni
— the execution of construction works or of other installations or schemes,
– izvedbo gradbenih ali drugih instalacijskih del ali projektov,
— other interventions in the natural surroundings and landscape including those involving the extraction of mineral resources;
– druge posege v naravno okolje in krajino, vključno s tistimi, ki vključujejo izkori�čanje mineralnih virov;
“developer” means: the applicant for authorisation for a private project or the public authority which initiates a project;
‚nosilec projekta‘ pomeni: prosilca za dovolitev zasebnega projekta, ali javni organ, ki da pobudo za projekt;
“development consent” means: the decision of the competent authority or authorities which entitles the developer to proceed with the project.’
‚soglasje za izvedbo‘ pomeni: odločitev pristojnega organa ali organov, ki dovoljuje nosilcu projekta izvedbo projekta.“
Under Article 2(1) of the directive, ‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.
V skladu s členom 2(1) Direktive 85/337: „Države članice sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da se pred izdajo soglasja za izvedbo presodijo vplivi projektov, ki bodo, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
These projects are defined in Article 4’.
Ti projekti so opredeljeni v členu 4.“
‘The environmental impact assessment will identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:
„V presoji vplivov na okolje bodo glede vsakega posameznega primera in skladno s členi 4 do 11 na primeren način opredeljeni, opisani in ocenjeni neposredni in posredni vplivi posameznega projekta na naslednje dejavnike:
— the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first and second indents,
– medsebojnih vplivov dejavnikov, navedenih v prvi in drugi alineji,
— material assets and the cultural heritage.’
– materialno lastnino in kulturno dedi�čino.“
Article 4 distinguishes two types of project.
Člen 4 razlikuje dve vrsti projektov.
Article 4(1) requires that, subject to Article 2(3), projects of the classes listed in Annex I to the directive are to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.
V skladu s členom 4(1) je določeno, da se ob upo�tevanju člena 2(3) projekti, ki so na�teti v prilogi I, presojajo v skladu s členi od 5 do 10 te direktive.
The projects which fall within Article 4(1) include the ‘construction … of airports with a basic runway length of 2 100 m or more’, referred to in point 7 of Annex I.
Med projekte, na katere se nana�a člen 4(1) Direktive 85/337, spada v skladu s točko 7 priloge I „Gradnja […] letali�č z vzletno stezo osnovne dolžine 2100 m ali več.“
Footnote 2 to point 7 states that ‘for the purposes of this Directive, “airport” means airports which comply with the definition in the 1944 Chicago Convention setting up the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Annex 14)’.
V opombi 2 k tej točki 7 je navedeno: „V tej direktivi ‚letali�če‘ pomeni letali�ča, ki so skladna z opredelitvijo v Čika�ki konvenciji o ustanovitvi Mednarodne organizacije civilnega letalstva (priloga 14) iz leta 1944.“
As regards other types of projects, Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 provides:
Glede drugih projektov je v členu 4(2) Direktive 85/337 določeno:
‘Projects of the classes listed in Annex II shall be made subject to an assessment, in accordance with Articles 5 to 10, where Member States consider that their characteristics so require.
„Projekti skupin, na�tetih v Prilogi II, se presodijo v skladu s členi 5 do 10, če države članice menijo, da njihove značilnosti tako zahtevajo.
In respect of those projects which fall within Article 4(2) of the directive, point 10(d) of Annex II refers to the ‘construction of … airfields (projects not listed in Annex I)’ and point 12 of that annex refers to ‘modifications to development projects included in Annex I’.
Kot projekti, ki izhajajo iz člena 4(2) Direktive, so v točki 10(d) priloge II navedeni: „Gradnja […] letali�č (projekti, ki niso vključeni v Prilogo I)“, v točki 12 iste priloge pa „Spremembe projektov, vključenih v Prilogo I.“
Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 85/337, to which Article 4 of that directive refers, essentially state the following: Article 5 specifies the minimum information to be provided by the developer, Article 6 imposes, inter alia, the developer’s obligation to inform the authorities and the public, Article 8 refers to the obligation of the competent authorities to take into consideration the information gathered in the assessment procedure, and Article 9 imposes an obligation on the competent authorities to inform the public of the decision taken and any conditions attached to it.
V členih od 5 do 9 Direktive 85/337, na katere se sklicuje člen 4 te direktive, je določeno: v členu 5 Direktive 85/337 je predviden minimum informacij, ki jih mora priskrbeti nosilec projekta; v členu 6 je zlasti določeno, da mora nosilec projekta obvestiti zadevne organe in zadevno javnost; na podlagi člena 8 morajo pristojni organi upo�tevati v okviru postopka presoje zbrane informacije; člen 9 pa uvaja obveznost za pristojne organe, da obvestijo javnost o sprejeti odločitvi in o morebitnih pogojih, ki iz nje izhajajo.
In the Region of Wallonia, the assessment of the effects of projects on the environment was governed, until 1 October 2002, by a decree of 11 September 1985 and by the decree implementing it of 31 October 1991.
V regiji Valonija sta presojo vplivov na okolje do 1. oktobra 2002 urejala dekret z dne 11. septembra 1985 in njegova izvedbena uredba z dne 31. oktobra 1991.
Those decrees provided that the projects listed in Annex I to the Decree of 11 September 1985, which adopted the list in Annex I to Directive 85/337, and in
V teh predpisih je bilo predvideno, da je treba za projekte, navedene v prilogi I k dekretu z dne 11. septembra 1985, ki povzema seznam priloge I k Direktivi 85/337, ter v prilogi II k izvedbeni uredbi z dne 31. oktobra 1991, po uradni dolžnosti izvesti
Annex II to the Decree of 31 October 1991 were automatically subject to an environmental impact assessment.
�tudijo o vplivih na okolje.
Other projects, for which an impact assessment was not automatically required, only had to be the subject of a prior notice regarding assessment of their impact on the environment.
Drugi projekti, za katere ni predpisano, da mora biti �tudija o vplivih na okolje izvedena po uradni dolžnosti, morajo biti le predmet predhodnega poročila o presoji vplivov na okolje.
In accordance with Annex I to the Decree of 11 September 1985, the construction of airports with a runway length of at least 2 100 metres had to be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
V skladu s prilogo I k dekretu z dne 11. septembra 1985 je treba v primeru gradnje letali�č z vzletno in pristajalno stezo dolžine vsaj 2100 m obvezno izvesti �tudijo o vplivih na okolje.
In addition, pursuant to Annex II to the Decree of 31 October 1991, the construction of airports with a runway length of 1 200 metres or more, including the extension of existing runways beyond that threshold and leisure airports, also had to be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Tako �tudijo je bilo v skladu s prilogo II k Uredbi z dne 31. oktobra 1991 treba izvesti v primeru gradnje letali�ča z vzletno in pristajalno stezo dolžine 1200 m ali več, tudi če je �lo za podalj�anje obstoječih stez čez ta prag ali za �portno letali�če.
The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The individuals who live near Liège-Bierset Airport complain of noise pollution, often at night, resulting from the restructuring of the former military airport and its use since 1996 by air freight companies.
Stanovalci, ki živijo v bližini letali�ča Liège-Bierset, se pritožujejo zaradi hrupa, pogosto nočnega, ki je posledica prestrukturiranja nekdanjega voja�kega letali�ča in njegove rabe od leta 1996 s strani družb, ki se ukvarjajo z letalskim tovornim prometom.
In particular, the runways were restructured and widened.
Express Worldwide, je predvideval �tevilna gradbena dela za spremembo infrastrukture letali�ča Liège-Bierset, da bi se omogočila njegova uporaba 24 ur na dan, 365 dni na leto.
A control tower, new runway exits and aprons were also constructed.
Prav tako so bili zgrajeni kontrolni stolp, nove vozne steze za letala in letali�ke plo�čadi.
The length of the runway of 3 297 metres was not altered however.
Dolžina vzletne in pristajalne steze, 3297 m, pa je ostala nespremenjena.
Planning consents and operational authorisations were also granted so that the works could be carried out.
Prav tako so bila za izvedbo teh del izdana gradbena in obratovalna dovoljenja.
The dispute pending before the Belgian national court concerns liability: the claimants in the main proceedings have sought compensation for the harm suffered, in their view, by them as a result of the nuisance — which they claim to be serious — linked to the restructuring of the airport.
Spor, ki je bil predložen belgijskemu nacionalnemu sodi�ču, se nana�a na vpra�anje odgovornosti. Tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari so zahtevale nadomestilo za �kodo, ki naj bi jo utrpele zaradi – po njihovem mnenju – močnega hrupa zaradi prestrukturiranja letali�ča.
It is in that context that an appeal on a point of law was brought before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) against a judgment delivered on 29 June 2004 by the Cour d’appel de Liège (Court of Appeal of Liège).
V tem okviru je bila pri belgijskem Cour de Cassation vložena kasacijska pritožba zoper sodbo z dne 29. junija 2004, ki jo je izdalo Cour d’appel de Liège.
Considering that the dispute before it raised questions of interpretation of Community law, the Cour de cassation decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Cour de Cassation menilo, da spor, o katerem odloča, vsebuje vpra�anja glede razlage prava Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
The questions
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
By its first question the national court asks whether an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is a ‘project’ within the meaning of Directive 85/337.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem spra�uje ali sporazum, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni „projekt“ v smislu Direktive 85/337.
It is apparent from the very wording of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 that the term ‘project’ refers to works or physical interventions.
V skladu s samim besedilom člena 1(2) Direktive 85/337 se pojem „projekt“ nana�a na dela ali fizične posege.
An agreement cannot, therefore, be regarded as a project within the meaning of Directive 85/337, irrespective of whether that agreement contains a more or less exact description of the works to be carried out.
Sporazum se zato neodvisno od tega, ali vsebuje bolj ali manj natančen opis del, ki jih je treba izvesti, ne more �teti za projekt v smislu Direktive 85/337.
However, in order to provide a satisfactory answer to a national court which has referred a question to it, the Court of Justice may also deem it necessary to consider provisions of Community law to which the national court has not referred in the text of its question (see, inter alia, Case 35/85 Tissier [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9).
Vendar lahko Sodi�če, zato da bi sodi�ču, ki mu je predložilo vpra�anje v predhodno odločanje, podalo uporaben odgovor, upo�teva določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jih predložitveno sodi�če v vpra�anju ni navedlo (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 20. marca 1986 v zadevi Tissier, 35/85, Recueil, str. 1207, točka 9).
In the present case, it should be pointed out to the national court that it is for it to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337, that is to say a decision of the competent authority which entitles the developer to proceed with the project (see, to that effect, Case C-81/96 Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland [1998] ECR I-3923, paragraph 20).
V tej zadevi je treba predložitveno sodi�če opozoriti na to, da mora na podlagi nacionalnih predpisov, ki se uporabijo, ugotoviti, ali sporazum, kot je v postopku v glavni stvari, pomeni soglasje za izvedbo v smislu člena 1(2) Direktive 85/337, torej odločbo pristojnega organa, na podlagi katere nosilec projekta pridobi pravico za izvedbo zadevnega projekta (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. junija 1998 v zadevi Gedeputeerde Staten van Noord-Holland, C-81/96, Recueil, str.
Such would be the case if that decision could, under national law, be regarded as a decision of the competent authority or authorities granting the developer the right to proceed with construction works or other installations or schemes or to intervene in the natural surroundings and landscape.
I-3923, točka 20). To bi bilo v primeru, če bi se ta odločba v skladu z nacionalnim pravom �tela za odločbo pristojnega organa ali organov, ki nosilcem projekta dajo pravico za izvedbo gradbenih ali drugih instalacijskih del ali projektov oziroma za posege v naravno okolje ali krajino.
In addition, where national law provides that the consent procedure is to be carried out in several stages, the environmental impact assessment in respect of a project must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have on the environment (see Case C-201/02 Wells [2004] ECR I-723, paragraph 53).
Kadar nacionalno pravo predpisuje večfazni postopek s soglasjem, je treba vplive projekta na okolje ugotoviti in presoditi načeloma takoj, ko je mogoče ugotoviti in presoditi vse učinke, ki jih lahko ima ta projekt na okolje (glej sodbo z dne 7. januarja 2004 v zadevi Wells, C-201/02, Recueil, str. I-723, točka 53).
Thus, where one of those stages involves a principal decision and the other involves an implementing decision which cannot extend beyond the parameters set by the principal decision, the effects which a project may have on the environment must be identified and assessed at the time of the procedure relating to the principal decision.
Če je ena izmed teh faz osnovna odločba, druga pa izvr�itvena odločba, ki ne sme prestopiti norm, določenih z osnovno odločbo, je treba vplive, ki jih bo projekt verjetno imel na okolje, ugotoviti in presoditi v postopku izdaje osnovne odločbe.
It is only if those effects are not identifiable until the time of the procedure relating to the implementing decision that the assessment should be carried out in the course of the latter procedure (Wells, paragraph 52).
Samo če je te vplive mogoče ugotoviti le v postopku za sprejetje izvr�itvene odločbe, bi bilo treba presojo opraviti v tem postopku (zgoraj navedena sodba Wells, točka 52).