# C_2008107EN.01000601.xml

| 26.4.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others, Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07) (1)

1

(Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length)

(2008/C 107/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others., Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto

Applicants:

Defendants: Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Defendants:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Notion of ‘project liable to have significant effects on the environment’ — Airport with a runway of more than 2 100 metres in length — Work on infrastructures and work to restructure an existing airport without extension of the runway — Requirement for an impact assessment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1) | While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337. It is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a principal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact on the environment must be assessed globally. |
| --- | --- |

1)

While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337. It is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a principal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact on the environment must be assessed globally.

| 2) | Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version, also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic. It is for the national court to establish that the competent authorities correctly assessed whether the works at issue in the main proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assessment. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I, to Directive 85/337, in their original version, also encompasses works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic. It is for the national court to establish that the competent authorities correctly assessed whether the works at issue in the main proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assessment.

| 3) | The competent authorities have to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environmental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a view to accommodating that increase in activity. |
| --- | --- |

3)

The competent authorities have to take account of the projected increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environmental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a view to accommodating that increase in activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---