# C_2016457EN.01001101.xml

| 8.12.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 457/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 457/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 2 October 2015

in Case E-3/15

Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz)

(Directive 2011/92/EU on environmental impact assessment of public and private projects — Article 11 — Right of access to a judicial review procedure — Effect of EEA law in national legal orders — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

(2016/C 457/08)

In Case E-3/15, Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz and Gemeinde Vaduz (Municipality of Vaduz) – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein

| 1. | Liechtenstein was under an obligation to implement Directive 2011/92/EU pursuant to Decision No 230/2012 of 7 December 2012 of the EEA Joint Committee and apply it to the environmental impact assessment procedure at issue in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Liechtenstein was under an obligation to implement Directive 2011/92/EU pursuant to Decision No 230/2012 of 7 December 2012 of the EEA Joint Committee and apply it to the environmental impact assessment procedure at issue in the main proceedings.

| 2. | It is not compatible with Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU to adopt a general environmental impact assessment decision, while deferring the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental effects such as those set out in Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU to subsequent authorisation procedures with no access for non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection to a review procedure before a judicial body. Whether crucial issues are at stake in this case is for the national court to decide. |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is not compatible with Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU to adopt a general environmental impact assessment decision, while deferring the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental effects such as those set out in Article 5(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU to subsequent authorisation procedures with no access for non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection to a review procedure before a judicial body. Whether crucial issues are at stake in this case is for the national court to decide.

| 3. | EEA law does not require that non-implemented EEA rules can be relied on directly before national courts in the EFTA States. However, it follows from EEA law that when interpreting national rules the national court is bound to apply, as far as possible, the methods of interpretation recognised by national law in order to achieve the result sought by Directive 2011/92/EU. This obligation arises on the day the respective legal act is made part of the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

EEA law does not require that non-implemented EEA rules can be relied on directly before national courts in the EFTA States. However, it follows from EEA law that when interpreting national rules the national court is bound to apply, as far as possible, the methods of interpretation recognised by national law in order to achieve the result sought by Directive 2011/92/EU. This obligation arises on the day the respective legal act is made part of the EEA Agreement.

| 4. | It is for the referring court, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to determine the remedies that are available for an infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU. |
| --- | --- |

4.

It is for the referring court, in the light of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, to determine the remedies that are available for an infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU.

---