# C_2015007EN.01001401.xml

| 12.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 7/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 October 2014 — Dimos Kropias Attikis v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

(Case C-473/14)

(2015/C 007/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dimos Kropias Attikis

Applicant:

Defendant: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a master plan for a metropolitan urban-planning area which sets out general objectives, guidelines and programmes for organising the spatial and urban planning of the broader metropolitan area, in particular establishing as individual general objectives the protection of the mountainous areas surrounding the metropolitan area and the containment of urban sprawl, a plan which allows the competent administrative authority not to subject a plan — which is subsequently adopted by means of a decree pursuant to the law containing the aforementioned initial master plan and which defines protection zones in one of the aforementioned mountainous areas and the related permitted land uses and activities, in order to give more specific expression to and implement the objectives for the protection of mountainous areas and the containment of urban sprawl — to the strategic environmental assessment procedure laid down in Directive 2001/42/EC (1) (OJ 2001 L 197), within the meaning of Article 3 thereof, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others [2012], paragraph 42? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a master plan for a metropolitan urban-planning area which sets out general objectives, guidelines and programmes for organising the spatial and urban planning of the broader metropolitan area, in particular establishing as individual general objectives the protection of the mountainous areas surrounding the metropolitan area and the containment of urban sprawl, a plan which allows the competent administrative authority not to subject a plan — which is subsequently adopted by means of a decree pursuant to the law containing the aforementioned initial master plan and which defines protection zones in one of the aforementioned mountainous areas and the related permitted land uses and activities, in order to give more specific expression to and implement the objectives for the protection of mountainous areas and the containment of urban sprawl — to the strategic environmental assessment procedure laid down in Directive 2001/42/EC (1) (OJ 2001 L 197), within the meaning of Article 3 thereof, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others [2012], paragraph 42?

1

Inter-Environnement Bruxelles and Others

| 2. | If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative: where, due to the time of the adoption of the plan to which more specific expression has been given within the framework of a hierarchy of spatial planning acts, no strategic environmental assessment under the aforementioned Directive 2001/42/EC was carried out in respect of that plan, must that assessment be carried out in respect of the measure, adopted when the directive is in force, which gives more specific expression to that plan? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative: where, due to the time of the adoption of the plan to which more specific expression has been given within the framework of a hierarchy of spatial planning acts, no strategic environmental assessment under the aforementioned Directive 2001/42/EC was carried out in respect of that plan, must that assessment be carried out in respect of the measure, adopted when the directive is in force, which gives more specific expression to that plan?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the negative: where a decree contains rules relating to protection measures and to permitted activities and land uses in an area included in the national part of the NATURA network as a SCI [Site of Community Importance], SAC [Special Area of Conservation] and SPA [Special Protection Area], and those rules admittedly establish a regime of absolute nature protection, permitting only fire protection installations, forest management and hiking paths, but it is not apparent from the preparatory acts for the introduction of those rules that the conservation objectives of those areas — namely the specific environmental characteristics on account of which they were selected for inclusion in the NATURA network — were taken into account, while moreover uses that are no longer permitted are also still maintained within the area in question on the basis of those rules solely due to the fact that they were compatible with the previous protection regime, is that decree a management plan, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (OJ 1992 L 206), prior to the adoption of which there was no obligation to carry out a strategic environmental assessment, in accordance with that article interpreted in conjunction with Article 3(2)(b) of the aforementioned Directive 2001/42/EC? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the negative: where a decree contains rules relating to protection measures and to permitted activities and land uses in an area included in the national part of the NATURA network as a SCI [Site of Community Importance], SAC [Special Area of Conservation] and SPA [Special Protection Area], and those rules admittedly establish a regime of absolute nature protection, permitting only fire protection installations, forest management and hiking paths, but it is not apparent from the preparatory acts for the introduction of those rules that the conservation objectives of those areas — namely the specific environmental characteristics on account of which they were selected for inclusion in the NATURA network — were taken into account, while moreover uses that are no longer permitted are also still maintained within the area in question on the basis of those rules solely due to the fact that they were compatible with the previous protection regime, is that decree a management plan, within the meaning of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (OJ 1992 L 206), prior to the adoption of which there was no obligation to carry out a strategic environmental assessment, in accordance with that article interpreted in conjunction with Article 3(2)(b) of the aforementioned Directive 2001/42/EC?

2

| 4. | Finally, if the answer to the third question is in the affirmative: when a spatial planning measure has been adopted that relates to a wider single geographical area, and requires, in principle, under Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the carrying out of a strategic environmental assessment, which did not take place, and if it is found that the carrying out of a prior environmental assessment was required only for certain sections of this area — on account of the rules finally imposed in relation to the land uses and activities permitted in those sections, which do not constitute mere management plans — whereas for the largest part this assessment was not required because the rules adopted, in so far as they relate to these sections, in practice constitute a management plan, for which, in accordance with Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, there is no obligation to carry out such an assessment, is it possible, for the purposes of Directive 2001/42/EC, to find that this body of rules is partially invalid and, therefore, to annul it only in respect of the sections of the area which, because of the rules finally imposed, require the carrying out of a prior environmental assessment, with the further consequence, after the partial annulment of the measure in question, that a strategic environmental assessment takes place only in relation to this part and not the overall area? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Finally, if the answer to the third question is in the affirmative: when a spatial planning measure has been adopted that relates to a wider single geographical area, and requires, in principle, under Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the carrying out of a strategic environmental assessment, which did not take place, and if it is found that the carrying out of a prior environmental assessment was required only for certain sections of this area — on account of the rules finally imposed in relation to the land uses and activities permitted in those sections, which do not constitute mere management plans — whereas for the largest part this assessment was not required because the rules adopted, in so far as they relate to these sections, in practice constitute a management plan, for which, in accordance with Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2001/42/EC in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, there is no obligation to carry out such an assessment, is it possible, for the purposes of Directive 2001/42/EC, to find that this body of rules is partially invalid and, therefore, to annul it only in respect of the sections of the area which, because of the rules finally imposed, require the carrying out of a prior environmental assessment, with the further consequence, after the partial annulment of the measure in question, that a strategic environmental assessment takes place only in relation to this part and not the overall area?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

1

(2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

2

---