# C_2005171EN.01000501.xml

| 9.7.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (1)

1

(Directive 90/313/EEC - Freedom of access to information on the environment - Request for information - Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal - Mandatory time-limit - Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply - Implied refusal - Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)

(2005/C 171/09)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-186/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decision of 1 April 2004, received at the Court on 22 April 2004, in the proceedings between Pierre Housieaux and Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale interested parties: — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | The two-month time-limit laid down in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is mandatory. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The two-month time-limit laid down in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment is mandatory.

| 2. | The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313, against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the person who made the request for information, is the implied refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority competent to decide on that request to respond within two months. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313, against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the person who made the request for information, is the implied refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority competent to decide on that request to respond within two months.

| 3. | Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, national legislation according to which, for the purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a public authority to respond within a period of two months is deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the national legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances, the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, national legislation according to which, for the purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a public authority to respond within a period of two months is deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the national legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances, the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful.

---

(1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

1

---