# C_2007069EN.01000401.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 4 January 2007 — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others v Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07)

(2007/C 69/07)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux and Others

Applicants:

Defendants: Region of Wallonia, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège-Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes — Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Defendants:

Questions referred

| ‘1. | Does 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, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a project within the meaning 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 (1), as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

Does 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, and which provides for both nighttime and daytime flights with effect from the date at which the undertaking became operational at that airport constitute a project within the meaning 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 (1), as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2)?

1

2

| 2. | Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without extension of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”, for which an impact assessment is required within the terms of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the work to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport with a view to adapting it to a projected increase in the number of nighttime and daytime flights, without extension of the runway, correspond to the notion of a “project”, for which an impact assessment is required within the terms of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as applicable before its amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997?

| 3. | Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, must the Member State in question nevertheless take account of that increase when examining the potential environmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in activity?’ |
| --- | --- |

3.

Since a projected increase in the activity of an airport is not directly referred to in the annexes to Directive 85/337/EEC, must the Member State in question nevertheless take account of that increase when examining the potential environmental effect of modifications made to the infrastructures of that airport with a view to adapting it for that increase in activity?’

---

(1)  OJ L 175, p. 40.

1

(2)  OJ L 73, p. 5.

2

---