# C_2023271EN.01000501.xml

| 31.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-721/21, (1) Eco Advocacy)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Special areas of conservation - Article 6(3) - Screening of a plan or project with a view to determining whether or not it is necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of that plan or project for a special area of conservation - Statement of reasons - Measures that may be taken into account - Project for the construction of a dwelling - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Procedural rules according to which the subject matter of the dispute is determined by the pleas in law put forward at the point in time at which the action was brought)

(2023/C 271/06)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eco Advocacy CLG

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Other parties: Keegan Land Holdings, An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, ClientEarth AISBL

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule according to which, first, an application for judicial review, both under national law and under provisions of EU law such as Article 4(2) to (5) of, and Annex III to, 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, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, or 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, must state precisely each ground, giving particulars where appropriate and identify in respect of each ground the facts or matters relied upon as supporting that ground and, second, an applicant may not rely upon any grounds or any relief sought at the hearing other than those set out in that statement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law must be interpreted as not precluding a national procedural rule according to which, first, an application for judicial review, both under national law and under provisions of EU law such as Article 4(2) to (5) of, and Annex III to, 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, as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014, or 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, must state precisely each ground, giving particulars where appropriate and identify in respect of each ground the facts or matters relied upon as supporting that ground and, second, an applicant may not rely upon any grounds or any relief sought at the hearing other than those set out in that statement.

| 2. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43
  must be interpreted as meaning that:
  although, where a competent authority decides to authorise a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a site protected under that directive without requiring an appropriate assessment within the meaning of that provision, that authority is not required to respond, in the statement of reasons for its decision, to all the points of law and of fact raised during the administrative procedure, it must nevertheless state to the requisite standard the reasons why it was able, prior to the granting of such authorisation, to achieve certainty, notwithstanding any opinions to the contrary and any reasonable doubts expressed therein, that there was no reasonable scientific doubt as to the possibility that that project would significantly affect that site. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43

must be interpreted as meaning that:

although, where a competent authority decides to authorise a plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a site protected under that directive without requiring an appropriate assessment within the meaning of that provision, that authority is not required to respond, in the statement of reasons for its decision, to all the points of law and of fact raised during the administrative procedure, it must nevertheless state to the requisite standard the reasons why it was able, prior to the granting of such authorisation, to achieve certainty, notwithstanding any opinions to the contrary and any reasonable doubts expressed therein, that there was no reasonable scientific doubt as to the possibility that that project would significantly affect that site.

| 3. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43
  must be interpreted as meaning that:
  in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site, account may be taken of the features of that plan or project which involve the removal of contaminants and which therefore may have the effect of reducing the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site, where those features have been incorporated into that plan or project as standard features, inherent in such a plan or project, irrespective of any effect on the site. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43

must be interpreted as meaning that:

in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out an appropriate assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a site, account may be taken of the features of that plan or project which involve the removal of contaminants and which therefore may have the effect of reducing the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site, where those features have been incorporated into that plan or project as standard features, inherent in such a plan or project, irrespective of any effect on the site.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 11.4.2022.

---