# C_2004156EN.01000701.xml

| 12.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling brought on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat (Belgium) in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development (ILDWD)

(Case C-186/04)

(2004/C 156/14)

A reference for a preliminary ruling was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2004 by judgment of the administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat in the case of P. Housieaux against the Délégués du Conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, supported by the Société de développement régional de Bruxelles (SDRB), SA Batipont Immobilier (BPI) and SA Immomills L. de Waele Development (ILDWD).

The administrative section of the Conseil d'Etat asks the Court to rule on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the two-month period in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1) a non-mandatory time-limit – that is to say, merely indicatory for the authority to which a request for information is addressed, or is it a mandatory time-limit with which that authority must comply ? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the two-month period in Article 3(4) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1) a non-mandatory time-limit – that is to say, merely indicatory for the authority to which a request for information is addressed, or is it a mandatory time-limit with which that authority must comply ?

1

| 2. | If the two-month time-limit is mandatory and at the expiry of that period the authority to which a request for information was addressed has not taken a decision, what is the ‘decision’ referred to at the end of Article 4 of the Directive against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought ‘in accordance with the relevant national legal system’ ? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the two-month time-limit is mandatory and at the expiry of that period the authority to which a request for information was addressed has not taken a decision, what is the ‘decision’ referred to at the end of Article 4 of the Directive against which a judicial or administrative review may be sought ‘in accordance with the relevant national legal system’ ?

| 3. | Do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive prohibit a ‘relevant national legal system’ from interpreting a failure to respond on the part of the authority to which a request for information is referred – a failure to respond which continues throughout the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive – as a decision implicitly refusing that request, a decision for which no reasons are thus given but which may be the subject matter of the judicial or administrative review provided for in Article 4 ? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive prohibit a ‘relevant national legal system’ from interpreting a failure to respond on the part of the authority to which a request for information is referred – a failure to respond which continues throughout the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive – as a decision implicitly refusing that request, a decision for which no reasons are thus given but which may be the subject matter of the judicial or administrative review provided for in Article 4 ?

| 4. | If the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive is a non-mandatory time-limit, do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive preclude a ‘national legal system’ from providing that the person requesting information may give the authority notice to respond to his request for information within a certain period, failing which the persistent failure by the authority to respond will be deemed to be an implicit decision to refuse to communicate the information, which can then be the subject matter of an administrative judicial review ? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the two-month period referred to in Article 3(4) of the Directive is a non-mandatory time-limit, do Articles 3(4) and 4 of the Directive preclude a ‘national legal system’ from providing that the person requesting information may give the authority notice to respond to his request for information within a certain period, failing which the persistent failure by the authority to respond will be deemed to be an implicit decision to refuse to communicate the information, which can then be the subject matter of an administrative judicial review ?

---

(1)  OJ L 158 of 23.06.1990, p. 56.

1

---