# C_2021009EN.01000602.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2020 — Namur-Est Environnement ASBL v Région wallonne

(Case C-463/20)

(2021/C 9/10)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Namur-Est Environnement ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Questions referred

| 1. | Do a decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ and the decision authorising or refusing that working (single permit) form a single development consent (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of 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) (1) relating to a single project (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive) where, first, that working cannot take place without the first of those decisions and, secondly, the authority responsible for issuing single permits retains the ability to determine the environmental effects of that working more strictly having regard to the parameters set by the body that issued the first decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do a decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ and the decision authorising or refusing that working (single permit) form a single development consent (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of 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) (1) relating to a single project (within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of that directive) where, first, that working cannot take place without the first of those decisions and, secondly, the authority responsible for issuing single permits retains the ability to determine the environmental effects of that working more strictly having regard to the parameters set by the body that issued the first decision?

| 2. | If the answer to that first question is in the affirmative, are the requirements laid down by that directive, specifically in Articles 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, sufficiently met where the public participation phase takes place after adoption of the decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ but before adoption of the principal decision entitling the developer to proceed to work the quarry? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to that first question is in the affirmative, are the requirements laid down by that directive, specifically in Articles 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8, sufficiently met where the public participation phase takes place after adoption of the decision ‘authorising the disturbance of animals and degradation of the areas of habitat of those species for the working of a quarry’ but before adoption of the principal decision entitling the developer to proceed to work the quarry?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

---