natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If it appears appropriate to the situation at issue in the main proceedings, those sanctions may, where necessary, include a finding of discrimination by the court or the competent administrative authority in conjunction with an adequate level of publicity, the cost of which is to be borne by the defendant.
Sankcije so lahko, če je potrebno in če se zdi primerno za položaj, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, v obliki ugotovitve – da gre za diskriminacijo – sodi�ča ali pristojnega upravnega organa, s primerno stopnjo ustrezne publicitete, pri čemer se njeni stro�ki naložijo tožencu.
They may also take the form of a prohibitory injunction, in accordance with the rules of national law, ordering the employer to cease the discriminatory practice, and, where appropriate, a fine.
Lahko so tudi v obliki odredbe delodajalcu – da preneha z ugotovljeno diskriminatorno prakso – v skladu s pravili, določenimi z nacionalnim pravom, z ustrezno denarno kaznijo, če je potrebno.
They may, moreover, take the form of the award of damages to the body bringing the proceedings.
Poleg tega pa so lahko v obliki dodelitve od�kodnine organu, ki je vodil postopek.
The answer to the sixth question must therefore be that Article 15 of Direct- ive 2000/43 requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.
Na �esto vpra�anje je treba torej odgovoriti, da člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 zahteva, tudi če ni določljive žrtve, da so pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo pri kr�itvah nacionalnih določb, sprejetih za prenos te direktive, učinkovita, sorazmerna in odvračilna.
The fact that an employer states publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Direct- ive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, such statements being likely strongly to dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market.
To, da je delodajalec javno izjavil, da ne bo zaposlil delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju, v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direktive Sveta 2000/43 z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost, ker so take izjave takšne, da resno odvračajo nekatere kandidate, da bi predložili svoje kandidature, in s tem ustvarjajo oviro za njihov dostop do trga dela.
Public statements by which an employer lets it be known that under its recruitment policy it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43.
Javne izjave, s katerimi delodajalec naznani, da v okviru svoje zaposlovalne politike ne bo zaposloval delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, zadoščajo za domnevo, v smislu člena 8(1) Direktive 2000/43, o obstoju neposredno diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike.
It is then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Zato mora ta delodajalec dokazati, da ni bilo kršitve načela enakega obravnavanja.
It can do so by showing that the undertaking’s actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those
To lahko stori z dokazovanjem, da se dejanska zaposlovalna politika podjetja ne sklada s
2008 — CASE C-54/07 statements.
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07 temi izjavami.
It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer’s contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.
Predložitveno sodišče pa mora preveriti, ali so očitana dejstva dokazana, in presoditi, ali so dejstva, navedena v utemeljitev trditev tega delodajalca – da ni kršil načela enakega obravnavanja –, zadostna.
Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 requires that rules on sanctions applicable to breaches of national provisions adopted in order to transpose that directive must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, even where there is no identifiable victim.
Člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 zahteva, tudi če ni določljive žrtve, da so pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo pri kršitvah nacionalnih določb, sprejetih za prenos te direktive, učinkovita, sorazmerna in odvračilna.
Case C-156/07
Zadeva C-156/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Construction of a road in Milan)
„Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – Direktiva 85/337/EGS – Presoja vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje – Gradnja ceste v Milanu“
SUMMARY — CASE C-156/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-156/07
Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 85/337 — Determination by the Member States of the projects in the classes listed in Annex II requiring to be made subject to an environmental assessment
Okolje – Presoja vplivov nekaterih projektov na okolje – Direktiva 85/337 – Določitev projektov iz priloge II, ki jih je treba zavezati postopku presoje vplivov na okolje, s strani držav članic
(Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, Art. 4 and Annexes II and III)
(Direktiva Sveta 85/337, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, člen 4 ter prilogi II in III)
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 the projects concerned must be subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure.
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.
Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Direct- ive 97/11, 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) thereof.
Člen 2(1) Direktive 85/337 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, je treba razlagati tako, da ne zahteva, da se vsak projekt, ki bi lahko pomembno vplival na okolje, zaveže postopku presoje, določenem v tej direktivi, ampak da morajo biti temu postopku podvrženi samo projekti, ki so navedeni v prilogah I in II k navedeni direktivi, pod pogoji, določenimi v členu 4 te direktive, ter ob upo�tevanju členov 1(4) in (5) ter 2(3) iste direktive.
(see para. 34, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 34 in točko 1 izreka.)
Under Article 4(2) of the directive, it is for the Member States to determine themselves in which cases the projects in the classes listed in Annex II to the directive must be made subject to an environmental impact assessment.
Na podlagi člena 4(2) navedene direktive so države članice pristojne, da same določijo, v katerih primerih morajo biti projekti, navedeni v prilogi II k tej direktivi, zavezani presoji vplivov na okolje.
That provision leaves the Member States two options.
Ista določba dopu�ča državam članicam dve možnosti.
The first is to decide on a case-by-case basis whether a project covered by Annex II must be made subject to the assessment.
Prva je, da za vsak primer posebej določijo, ali mora biti projekt iz navedene priloge II predmet te presoje.
The second is to determine, in a general and abstract manner and according to thresholds or criteria, the projects in that annex which must be made subject to the assessment.
Druga je, da na splo�no in abstraktno določijo na podlagi pragov ali meril projekte, navedene v tej prilogi, ki bodo obvezno predmet navedene presoje.
Directive 85/337 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11, requires the Member States to take account of the relevant selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 85/337 when they determine,
Ustrezna izbirna merila, navedena v prilogi III k Direktivi 85/337, o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, 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
It stems from the actual wording of Article 4(3) of the directive that it re-
Iz samega člena 4(3) navedene direktive izhaja, da ta v enem in drugem primeru
AIELLO AND OTHERS quires Member States, in both cases, to take into account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III to the directive, that is to say, those of the criteria which must be applied in the light of the characteristics of the project concerned.
AIELLO IN DRUGI državam članicam nalaga obveznost, da upo�tevajo ustrezna izbirna merila, opredeljena v prilogi III k tej direktivi, to je tista od teh meril, ki jih je ob upo�tevanju značilnosti zadevnega projekta treba uporabiti.
(see paras 37-40, 46, operative part 2) 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.
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.
Depending on the characteristics of the national legal order in question, such an exclusion might dissuade or even prevent the competent national authority from taking into account the criterion or criteria in question.
Taka izključitev bi namreč lahko glede na značilnosti zadevnega nacionalnega pravnega reda bodisi odvrnila bodisi preprečila pristojnemu nacionalnemu organu, da upo�teva zadevno merilo ali merila.
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 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 97/11, which must
Če se država članica odloči, da bo tiste projekte iz priloge II k Direktivi 85/337 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/11, 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
2008 — CASE C-156/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-156/07
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by decision of 24 October 2006, received at the Court on 21 March 2007, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-156/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Consiglio di Stato (Italija) z odločbo z dne 24. oktobra 2006, ki je na Sodi�če prispela 21. marca 2007, v postopku
AIELLO AND OTHERS
AIELLO IN DRUGI
Advocate General: J. Mazák, Registrar: R. Grass, having informed the referring court that the Court proposes to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of its Rules of Procedure, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following
Grass, potem ko je bilo predložitveno sodi�če obve�čeno o nameri Sodi�ča, da v skladu s členom 104(3), drugi pododstavek, svojega Poslovnika odloči z obrazloženim sklepom, po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca sprejema naslednji
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain
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
2008 — CASE C-156/07 public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p.
2008 – ZADEVA C-156/07 projektov na okolje (UL L 175, str.
40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p.
40), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES z dne 3. marca 1997 (UL L 73, str.
5; ‘Directive 85/337’).
5, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 85/337).
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Salvatore Aiello and Others and the Comune di Milano (Municipality of Milan) and Others concerning the construction of a road linking certain districts in the north of Milan.
Ta predlog je bil predložen v okviru spora med S. Aiello in drugimi ter Comune di Milano in drugimi v zvezi z gradnjo ceste, ki povezuje nekatere severne četrti Milana.
Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337 states:
V členu 1(2) Direktive 85/337 je določeno:
Article 1(4) of Directive 85/337 provides:
V členu 1(4) Direktive 85/337 je določeno:
‘Projects serving national defence purposes are not covered by this Directive.’
„Ta direktiva ne vključuje projektov za namene državne obrambe.“
Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 states:
V členu 1(5) Direktive 85/337 je navedeno:
‘This Directive shall not apply to projects the details of which are adopted by a specific act of national legislation, since the objectives of this Directive, including that of supplying information, are achieved through the legislative process.’
„Ta direktiva ne velja za projekte, katerih podrobnosti so sprejete s posebnim zakonom nacionalne zakonodaje, ker se cilji te direktive, vključno z zagotavljanjem informacij, dosegajo z zakonodajnim postopkom.“
Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 provides:
V členu 2(1) Direktive 85/337 je določeno:
‘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 a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects.
„Države članice sprejmejo vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da so pred izdajo soglasja projekti, ki bodo verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje, med drugim zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije, predmet zahteve za izdajo soglasja za izvedbo in presojo njihovih vplivov.
These projects are defined in Article 4.’
Ti projekti so opredeljeni v členu 4.“
Article 2(3) of Directive 85/337 provides:
V členu 2(3) Direktive 85/337 je določeno:
‘Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in exceptional cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this Directive.’
„Brez poseganja v člen 7 lahko države članice v izjemnih primerih določen projekt v celoti ali delno izvzamejo iz določb v tej direktivi.“
Article 4 of Directive 85/337 provides:
V členu 4 Direktive 85/337 je določeno:
(a) a case-by-case examination, or
(a) preverjanjem za vsak primer posebej, ali
(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State, whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Ar -ticles 5 to 10.
(b) pragovi ali merili, ki jih postavi država članica, odločijo, ali se bo projekt presojal skladno s členi 5 do 10.
Member States shall ensure that the determination made by the competent authorities under paragraph 2 is made available to the public.’
Države članice zagotovijo, da je odločitev pristojnih organov v skladu z odstav- kom 2 na razpolago javnosti.“
Paragraph 7(c) of Annex I to Directive 85/337 refers to:
V točki 7(c) priloge I k Direktivi 85/337 je navedeno:
‘Construction of a new road of four or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as to provide four or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road would be 10 km or more in a continuous length.’
„Gradnja nove ceste s �tirimi ali več pasovi ali nova razvrstitev pasov na obstoječi cesti in/ali �iritev obstoječe ceste z dvema pasovoma ali manj, da bo imela �tiri ali več pasov, z dolžino take nove ceste ali dela ceste z novo razvrstitvijo pasov in/ali raz�irjenega dela ceste 10 km ali več neprekinjenega poteka.“
Paragraph 10(e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 refers to:
V točki 10(e) priloge II k Direktivi 85/337 je navedeno:
‘Construction of roads,…’
„Gradnja cest, […]“
— the cumulation with other projects,
– kumulacijo z drugimi projekti,
By a decree of 15 November 2001, the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic declared a state of emergency in the city of Milan on account of the pollution resulting from car traffic and the inadequacy of the existing road network.
Predsednik Sveta ministrov Italijanske republike je z odlokom z dne 15. novembra 2001 razglasil izredne razmere v mestu Milano zaradi onesnaženosti, ki je posledica avtomobilskega prometa in nezadostnosti obstoječega cestnega omrežja.
By order of 28 December 2001, the Minister of the Interior appointed the Mayor of Milan as the Commissioner responsible for the implementation of the necessary measures to deal with that situation.
Minister za notranje zadeve je s sklepom z dne 28. decembra 2001 imenoval župana Milana za komisarja, odgovornega za izvajanje ukrepov, potrebnih za re�evanje eh razmer.
In his capacity as Commissioner for traffic and mobility issues in Milan, the Mayor of that city approved a programme of works, which included the construction project for a road linking certain districts in the north of Milan, of a length of 1 600m.
Župan mesta Milano je v okviru svojih nalog komisarja, pristojnega za vpra�anja prometa in mobilnosti v Milanu, odobril program del, med katerimi je bil projekt gradnje ceste v dolžini 1600 m, ki povezuje nekatere severne četrti Milana.
On 29 October 2002, he approved the final project for that road.
Končni projekt v zvezi s to cesto je odobril 29. oktobra 2002.
They claimed, inter alia, that the procedure followed did not comply with Community law because no environmental impact assessment of the project had been carried out.
Trdili so zlasti, da uporabljeni postopek ni v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, ker ni bila opravljena presoja vplivov projekta na okolje.
That court dismissed the action as unfounded, and Mr Aiello and Others lodged an appeal against that judgment before the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State).
Sodi�če, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena, je to tožbo zavrnilo kot neutemeljeno in S. Aiello in drugi so se zoper to sodbo pritožili pri Consiglio di Stato (vrhovno upravno sodi�če).
The Consiglio di Stato ordered measures of inquiry from which it is apparent that, although the 1953 General Regulatory Plan for the municipality of Milan envisaged the construction of a road permitting a rapid connection between districts of the city more than 10 kilometres apart, that objective had finally been abandoned in favour of a different project, concerning the construction of a number of separate roads.
Consiglio di Stato je odredilo pripravljalne ukrepe, iz katerih se je izkazalo, da čeprav je splo�ni urbanistični načrt za občino Milano iz leta 1953 predvideval gradnjo ceste, ki bi omogočala hitro povezavo med mestnimi četrtmi, ki so bile oddaljene več kot deset kilometrov, je bil ta cilj dokončno opu�čen v korist drugačnega projekta, ki se je nana�al na gradnjo več različnih cest.
Two roads are planned, the first of which is at the origin of the main proceedings and the second of which is a different road of a length of 1 300m.
Zgrajeni naj bi bili dve cesti, od katerih je prva predmet spora o glavni stvari, druga pa je cesta v dolžini 1300 m.
The Consiglio di Stato considers, therefore, that the project at issue in the main proceedings does not fall within the context of the construction of a single road of more than 10 kilometres for the purposes of Annex I to Directive 85/337, which lists the projects for which an environmental impact assessment is obligatory, but within that of Annex II to that legislation, which refers merely to the construction of roads.
Consiglio di Stato zato meni, da projekt, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, ne spada v okvir gradnje ene same ceste v dolžini več kot deset kilometrov, ki naj bi spadala v prilogo I Direktive 85/337, v kateri so navedeni projekti, za katere je obvezna presoja vplivov na okolje, ampak v okvir gradnje ceste, ki spada v prilogo II k tej direktivi, ki ureja gradnjo cest na splo�no.
However, the Consiglio di Stato enquires whether the project being challenged should not be subject to such an assessment in accordance with, inter alia, Article 4 of Annex II read in conjunction with Annex III to Directive 85/337, on the ground that that project forms part of a larger operation for the restructuring of all the roads of the districts concerned, so that the competent authority should have taken into consideration the ‘cumulation’ of the separate projects, a factor expressly set out by Annex III.
Vendar pa se Consiglio di Stato spra�uje, ali ne bi bilo treba izpodbijanega projekta zavezati taki presoji zlasti na podlagi določb člena 4 v povezavi s prilogo II in prilogo III k Direktivi 85/337, ker je ta projekt del obsežnej�ega prestrukturiranja vseh cest v zadevnih četrtih, tako da bi pristojni organ moral upo�tevati „kumulacijo“ različnih projektov, tj. merilo, ki je izrecno določeno v navedeni prilogi III.
Accordingly, it decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
— that any project with a significant effect on the environment must, even if it is not listed in Annexes I or II to the Directive, be made subject to an environmental impact assessment;
Ali je treba člen 2 Direktive [85/337], v katerem je določeno, da so projekti, ki bi lahko pomembno vplivali na okolje, zavezani postopku presoje vplivov na okolje in da so ti projekti opredeljeni v členu 4 [iste direktive], razlagati tako, da je kateri koli projekt, ki pomembno vpliva na okolje, zavezan [temu] postopku presoje, čeprav ni vključen na seznam v prilogah I in II k [tej] direktivi, ali nasprotno, tako da so [navedenemu] postopku presoje zavezani samo projekti iz prilog I in II k [navedeni] direktivi?
Does Article 4 of Council Directive [85/337], in so far as it gives Member States the possibility of providing for environmental impact assessments to be carried out for projects in the classes listed in Annex II [thereto] on the basis of case-by-case assessments or predetermined criteria — account also being taken of the criteria set out in Annex III [thereto] — create a specific obligation or merely an option for the Member States to take account of all the criteria listed in Annex III ?
Ali člen 4 Direktive [85/337], v katerem je državam članicam dopu�čena možnost, da predvidijo postopek presoje vplivov na okolje za projekte [iz] priloge II [k tej direktivi] bodisi za vsak primer posebej bodisi na podlagi predhodno določenih meril, ob upo�tevanju izbirnih meril iz priloge III [k navedeni direktivi], uvaja strogo obveznost ali le možnost za države članice, da upo�tevajo merila iz [navedene] priloge III?