# C_2009233EN.01000303.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/3

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 3 July 2009 — Lesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

(Case C-240/09)

2009/C 233/05

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK

Applicant:

Defendant: Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given that the principal objective pursued by that international treaty is to change the classic definition of locus standi by according the status of a party to proceedings to the public, or the public concerned, as having the direct effect of an international treaty (‘self-executing effect’) in a situation where the European Union acceded to that international treaty on 17 February 2005 but to date has not adopted Community legislation in order to transpose the treaty concerned into Community law? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given that the principal objective pursued by that international treaty is to change the classic definition of locus standi by according the status of a party to proceedings to the public, or the public concerned, as having the direct effect of an international treaty (‘self-executing effect’) in a situation where the European Union acceded to that international treaty on 17 February 2005 but to date has not adopted Community legislation in order to transpose the treaty concerned into Community law?

locus standi

| 2. | Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, which has become a part of Community law, as having the direct applicability or direct effect of Community law within the meaning of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it possible to recognise Article 9 and in particular Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, which has become a part of Community law, as having the direct applicability or direct effect of Community law within the meaning of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice?

| 3. | If the answer to the first of the second question is in the affirmative, is it then possible to interpret Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given the principal objective pursued by that international treaty, as meaning that it is necessary also to include within the concept ‘act of a public authority’ an act consisting in the delivery of decisions, that is to say, that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body, the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first of the second question is in the affirmative, is it then possible to interpret Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention, given the principal objective pursued by that international treaty, as meaning that it is necessary also to include within the concept ‘act of a public authority’ an act consisting in the delivery of decisions, that is to say, that the right of public access to judicial hearings intrinsically also includes the right to challenge the decision of an administrative body, the unlawfulness of which lies in its effect on the environment?

---