# C_2023063EN.01002001.xml

| 20.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 25 November 2022 — Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General

(Case C-727/22)

(2023/C 63/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Friends of the Irish Environment CLG

Defendants: Government of Ireland, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 2(a) of the SEA Directive (1), read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a), be interpreted to mean that a measure adopted by the executive arm of a Member State, other than by reason of a legislative or administrative compulsion, and not on the authority of any regulatory, administrative or legislative measure, is capable of being a plan or programme to which the Directive applies, if the plan or programme so adopted sets a framework for downstream grant or refusal of development consent and thus satisfies the test from Article 3(2) of the Directive |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 2(a) of the SEA Directive (1), read in conjunction with Article 3(2)(a), be interpreted to mean that a measure adopted by the executive arm of a Member State, other than by reason of a legislative or administrative compulsion, and not on the authority of any regulatory, administrative or legislative measure, is capable of being a plan or programme to which the Directive applies, if the plan or programme so adopted sets a framework for downstream grant or refusal of development consent and thus satisfies the test from Article 3(2) of the Directive

| 2. | Must Article 3(1) read in conjunction with Article 3(8) and (9) of the SEA Directive be interpreted to mean that a plan or programme which makes specific, albeit described as ‘indicative’, provision for the allocation of funds to build certain infrastructure projects with a view to supporting the spatial development strategy of another plan, itself forming the basis of downstream spatial development strategy, could itself be a plan or programme within the meaning of the SEA Directive?
  If the answer to previous question is yes, does the fact that a plan which has as its objective the allocation of resources, mean that it must be treated as a budgetary plan within the meaning of Article 3(8)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 3(1) read in conjunction with Article 3(8) and (9) of the SEA Directive be interpreted to mean that a plan or programme which makes specific, albeit described as ‘indicative’, provision for the allocation of funds to build certain infrastructure projects with a view to supporting the spatial development strategy of another plan, itself forming the basis of downstream spatial development strategy, could itself be a plan or programme within the meaning of the SEA Directive?

If the answer to previous question is yes, does the fact that a plan which has as its objective the allocation of resources, mean that it must be treated as a budgetary plan within the meaning of Article 3(8)?

| 3. | Must Article 5, and Annex 1, of the SEA Directive be interpreted to mean that where an environmental assessment is required under Article 3(1), the environmental report for which provision is made therein should, once reasonable alternatives to a preferred option are identified, carry out an assessment of the preferred option and the reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis?
  If the answer to previous question is yes, is the requirement of the Directive met if the reasonable alternatives are assessed on a comparable basis prior to the selection of the preferred option, and thereafter the draft plan or programme is assessed and a more complete SEA assessment then carried out in regard to the preferred option only? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 5, and Annex 1, of the SEA Directive be interpreted to mean that where an environmental assessment is required under Article 3(1), the environmental report for which provision is made therein should, once reasonable alternatives to a preferred option are identified, carry out an assessment of the preferred option and the reasonable alternatives on a comparable basis?

If the answer to previous question is yes, is the requirement of the Directive met if the reasonable alternatives are assessed on a comparable basis prior to the selection of the preferred option, and thereafter the draft plan or programme is assessed and a more complete SEA assessment then carried out in regard to the preferred option only?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001, L 197, p. 30).

---