# C_2017006EN.01001602.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Obvodný úrad Trenčín

(Case C-243/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Article 6(3) - Aarhus Convention - Public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters - Articles 6 and 9 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to effective judicial protection - Project to construct an enclosure - Protected site ‘Strážovské vrchy’ - Administrative authorisation procedure - Environmental organisation - Request for the status of party to the procedure - Rejection - Legal action))

(2017/C 006/20)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK

Appellant:

Respondent: Obvodný úrad Trenčín

Respondent:

Third party: Biely potok a.s.

Third party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Inasmuch as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) and (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, enshrines the right to effective judicial protection, in conditions ensuring wide access to justice, of the rights which an environmental organisation meeting the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) of that convention derives from EU law, in this instance from Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of that convention, it must be interpreted as precluding, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, an interpretation of rules of national procedural law to the effect that an action against a decision refusing such an organisation the status of party to an administrative procedure for authorisation of a project that is to be carried out on a site protected pursuant to Directive 92/43 as amended by Directive 2006/105 does not necessarily have to be examined during the course of that procedure, which may be definitively concluded before a definitive judicial decision on possession of the status of party is adopted, and is automatically dismissed as soon as that project is authorised, thereby requiring that organisation to bring an action of another type in order to obtain that status and to secure judicial review of compliance by the competent national authorities with their obligations stemming from Article 6(3) of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---