# C_2019016EN.01002101.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Brian Holohan and Others v An Bord Pleanála

(Case C-461/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Conservation of wild fauna and flora - Road construction project - Appropriate assessment of effects on the environment - Extent of the obligation to state reasons - Directive 2011/92/EU - Assessment of the implications of certain projects - Annex IV, Point 3 - Article 5(3)(d) - Meaning of the concept of ‘main alternatives’))

(2019/C 16/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Intervener: National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | 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 be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site. |
| --- | --- |

1.

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 be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ must, on the one hand, catalogue the entirety of habitat types and species for which a site is protected, and, on the other, identify and examine both the implications of the proposed project for the species present on that site, and for which that site has not been listed, and the implications for habitat types and species to be found outside the boundaries of that site, provided that those implications are liable to affect the conservation objectives of the site.

| 2. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase, such as the location of the construction compound and haul routes, only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority is permitted to grant to a plan or project consent which leaves the developer free to determine subsequently certain parameters relating to the construction phase, such as the location of the construction compound and haul routes, only if that authority is certain that the development consent granted establishes conditions that are strict enough to guarantee that those parameters will not adversely affect the integrity of the site.

| 3. | Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority rejects the findings in a scientific expert opinion recommending that additional information be obtained, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must include an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority rejects the findings in a scientific expert opinion recommending that additional information be obtained, the ‘appropriate assessment’ must include an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the work envisaged on the site concerned.

| 4. | Article 5(1) and (3) of, and Annex IV 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the developer is obliged to supply information that expressly addresses the significant effects of its project on all species identified in the statement that is supplied pursuant to those provisions. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Article 5(1) and (3) of, and Annex IV 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the developer is obliged to supply information that expressly addresses the significant effects of its project on all species identified in the statement that is supplied pursuant to those provisions.

| 5. | Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the developer must supply information in relation to the environmental impact of both the chosen option and of all the main alternatives studied by the developer, together with the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, even if such an alternative was rejected at an early stage. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the developer must supply information in relation to the environmental impact of both the chosen option and of all the main alternatives studied by the developer, together with the reasons for his choice, taking into account at least the environmental effects, even if such an alternative was rejected at an early stage.

---

(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.

---