# C_2009153EN.01001102.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

(Case C-75/08) (1)

1

(Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Obligation to make public the reasons for a determination not to make a project subject to an assessment)

2009/C 153/22

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Queen on the application of Christopher Mellor

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Obligation to make available to the public reasons for a decision not to subject a project falling within the classes listed in Annex II to the directive to an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as not requiring that a determination, that it is unnecessary to subject a project falling within Annex II to that directive to an environmental impact assessment, should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority’s decision that the latter was unnecessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent administrative authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for the determination or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as not requiring that a determination, that it is unnecessary to subject a project falling within Annex II to that directive to an environmental impact assessment, should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority’s decision that the latter was unnecessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent administrative authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for the determination or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made.

| 2. | If a determination of a Member State not to subject a project, falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended by Directive 2003/35, to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, states the reasons on which it is based, that determination is sufficiently reasoned where the reasons which it contains, added to factors which have already been brought to the attention of interested parties, and supplemented by any necessary additional information which the competent national administration is required to provide to those interested parties at their request, can enable them to decide whether to appeal against that decision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

If a determination of a Member State not to subject a project, falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 as amended by Directive 2003/35, to an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of that directive, states the reasons on which it is based, that determination is sufficiently reasoned where the reasons which it contains, added to factors which have already been brought to the attention of interested parties, and supplemented by any necessary additional information which the competent national administration is required to provide to those interested parties at their request, can enable them to decide whether to appeal against that decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

1

---