# C_2010179EN.01001801.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe — Notre village ASBL, Alix Walsh, André Philips, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Société Wallone des Aéroports SA (SOWAER), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Infrabel SA, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Pierre Deneye, Paul Thiry, Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Sartau SA, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Nicole Laloux, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Berbadette Mestdag, Jean-François Serrafin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Jeanne Mariel, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Serrafin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Guido Durlet, Société régionale wallonne du transport SRWT, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Codic Belgique SA, Fédéral Express European Services Inc. v Walloon Region

(Case C-182/10)

(2010/C 179/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour Constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe — Notre village ASBL, Alix Walsh, André Philips, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Société Wallone des Aéroports SA (SOWAER), Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Infrabel SA, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Pierre Deneye, Paul Thiry, Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Sartau SA, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Nicole Laloux, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Berbadette Mestdag, Jean-François Serrafin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Jeanne Mariel, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Serrafin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l’Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Guido Durlet, Société régionale wallonne du transport SRWT, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Codic Belgique SA, Fédéral Express European Services Inc.

Defendant: Walloon Region

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (1) be interpreted in accordance with the guidance provided in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (1) be interpreted in accordance with the guidance provided in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide?

| 2. | (a) | Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the Decree of the Walloon Region of 17 July 2008 on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the Decree of the Walloon Region of 17 July 2008 on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest?

| (b) | Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question?

| (c) | Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the town-planning and environmental consents granted in accordance with the procedure established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question?

| (d) | Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as excluding from its application legislative acts such as the ratifications of town-planning and environmental consents contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question?

| 3. | (a) | Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which the regional legislator grants town-planning and environmental consents which have been prepared by an administrative authority and which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts? |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

(a)

Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which the regional legislator grants town-planning and environmental consents which have been prepared by an administrative authority and which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts?

| (b) | Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the retroactive ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Must Articles 3(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the retroactive ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which are amenable only to the legal actions mentioned in paragraphs B.6. and B.7 of this order that may be brought before the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts?

| 4. | (a) | Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which a decree granting town-planning and environmental consents need not itself contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC? |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

(a)

Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding a procedure such as that established by Articles 1 to 4 of the decree in question, under which a decree granting town-planning and environmental consents need not itself contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC?

| (b) | Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which do not themselves contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Must Article 6(9) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337/EEC be interpreted as precluding the adoption of legislative acts such as the ratifications contained in Articles 5 to 9 and 14 to 17 of the decree in question, which do not themselves contain all the information necessary to establish whether those consents are based on an adequate prior evaluation carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Aarhus Convention and Directive 85/337/EEC?

| 5. | Must Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) be interpreted as permitting a legislative authority to authorise projects such as those referred to in Articles 16 and 17 of the decree in question, even though the impact assessment carried out in that connection has been held by the Council of State, in a judgment given under the emergency procedure, to be incomplete and even though the assessment has been contradicted in an Opinion of the authority of the Walloon Region responsible for the ecological management of the natural environment? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) be interpreted as permitting a legislative authority to authorise projects such as those referred to in Articles 16 and 17 of the decree in question, even though the impact assessment carried out in that connection has been held by the Council of State, in a judgment given under the emergency procedure, to be incomplete and even though the assessment has been contradicted in an Opinion of the authority of the Walloon Region responsible for the ecological management of the natural environment?

| 6. | In the event of a negative reply to Question 5, must Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC be interpreted as permitting the creation of infrastructure designed to accommodate the administrative centre of a private company and a large number of employees to be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest? |
| --- | --- |

6.

In the event of a negative reply to Question 5, must Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC be interpreted as permitting the creation of infrastructure designed to accommodate the administrative centre of a private company and a large number of employees to be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest?

---

(1)  The Aarhus Convention was concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved, on behalf of the European Community, by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1)

(2)  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. 40)

(3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 63)

---