Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:637
Date: 2008-11-20
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment
Concepts: General;Environment;Admissibility and examination of applications, forms of order sought and pleas in law
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Ireland

summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of fact and of law on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the form of order sought to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on a complaint (see, inter alia, Case C-195/04 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I‑3351, paragraph 22, and the judgment of 21 February 2008 in Case C-412/04 Commission v Italy, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 103). 31 The Court has also held that, in the context of an action brought under Article 226 EC, the reasoned opinion and the action must set out the Commission’s complaints coherently and precisely in order that the Member State and the Court may appreciate exactly the scope of the infringement of Community law complained of, a condition which is necessary in order to enable the Member State to avail itself of its right to defend itself and the Court to determine whether there is a breach of obligations as alleged (see, in particular, Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006] ECR I-4003, paragraph 18). 32 In the present case, it is clear from the documents before the Court that the Commission indicated in the pre-litigation procedure, when it sent the request for information dated 13 September 2001 to Ireland, that the Irish legislation transposing Directive 85/337 which it was taking into consideration in that procedure was constituted primarily by the PDA and the PDR. 33 Moreover, in so far as the letters of formal notice of 18 October and 19 December 2002 expressly referred to certain of the complaints received that were cited in that letter of 13 September 2001, they left no remaining doubt as to the Irish legislation with which the Commission was concerned. 34 Furthermore, the single reasoned opinion, issued on 11 July 2003 at the end of the pre-litigation procedure, does not display any ambiguity either, while the application initiating the proceedings expressly cites the Irish legislation transposing Directive 85/337 – namely the PDA and the PDR – which is said to show that Ireland has not taken all the measures necessary in order for certain projects to be subject to an environmental impact assessment as established by the directive. 35 Finally, the projects in respect of which, according to the Commission, the Community requirements are not complied with are perfectly identifiable in the light of the project categories set out in Annex II to Directive 85/337. 36 It follows from the foregoing that the Commission’s contentions in the course of the pre-litigation procedure and the procedure before the Court were sufficiently clear to enable Ireland to defend itself. 37 Accordingly, Ireland’s plea of inadmissibility must be dismissed. Substance The first complaint – Arguments of the parties 38 The Commission submits that the Irish legislation transposing Directive 85/337 is deficient in that it does not provide, in respect of project categories covered by point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to the directive, for effective measures to achieve the objectives laid down in Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) and (3) of the directive. 39 Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337 permits Member States, in respect of projects listed in Annex II, to determine through a case-by-case examination and/or through thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether a given project requires an environmental impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive. 40 However, the thresholds based on project size adopted by Ireland fail to take account of sensitive locations, such as archaeological sites. They are, moreover, set arbitrarily and unrelated to the reality of the size of Irish land holdings. Finally, they do not permit cumulation with other projects to be taken into account. 41 Irish legislation therefore does not comply with the means for determining which projects falling within Annex II to Directive 85/337 must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, means which must take account of the selection criteria laid down in Annex III to the directive. 42 In support of its argument, the Commission sets out a number of examples which, in its submission, show that the use of uniform thresholds means that no examination at all is carried out in respect of the environmental effects of projects which are, however, likely to have significant such effects. 43 Thus, it submits that certain projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings which lead to the removal of hedgerows, in particular for agricultural purposes, are not the subject of an environmental impact assessment although the removal of hedgerows is liable to have adverse effects on biodiversity in the countryside and significant effects on the natural environment. 44 The same is true of projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings that involve the demolition of stone walls constituting field boundaries in certain regions, although their removal can result in significant archaeological loss. 45 The Commission finally makes the same criticism with regard to projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes and to water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage projects. 46 Ireland submits first of all that the Commission has misinterpreted the scope of the Irish legislation and refers in particular to certain provisions of the PDR. 47 It adds that the interpretation of Article 4 of Directive 85/337 advocated by the Commission is irreconcilable with the wording of that article since it would effectively make reliance on thresholds impossible. 48 Directive 85/337 provides, by way of an alternative to a case-by-case examination of projects falling within Annex II, that a Member State may set thresholds for determining whether an environmental impact assessment is necessary. 49 Ireland states that it adopted the latter approach and set various thresholds, indeed at fairly low levels, including for the restructuring of rural land holdings, and that this system of thresholds is supplemented by Articles 103 and 109 of the PDR. 50 In deciding whether or not a development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment, the competent authority has regard to the criteria set out in Schedule 7 to the PDR, which corresponds to Annex III to Directive 85/337. 51 Ireland explains that detailed guidelines addressed to the competent local authorities deal with the screening of developments whose size is below the thresholds set by the applicable legislation and points out that those authorities can require the submission of an environmental impact statement, pursuant to Article 103 of the PDR. 52 Furthermore, the categories of development project at issue cannot be regarded per se as likely to have significant effects on the environment, so that it is only in the light of the characteristics specific to a given project that the possibility of such effects can be assessed. 53 Ireland adds that while certain classes of development, corresponding to minor development, are in principle exempted from the requirement to obtain permission, that exemption is, however, limited since, under Article 9 of the PDR, it cannot apply where a proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Article 9 of the PDR thus sets out six instances where the exemption cannot apply. 54 The Republic of Poland submits that the setting of uniform thresholds on the basis of the criterion of project size referred to in Annex III to Directive 85/337 does not of itself mean that the directive has been incorrectly transposed. 55 It observes that the Member States are entitled, for the purpose of determining which projects must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, to set thresholds without any requirement for a case-by-case examination. It adds in that regard that it is necessary, when adopting threshold values in respect of the criterion of project size, to take account of the other aspects of projects, in particular their nature and location. 56 The Republic of Poland concludes that Directive 85/337 can be infringed only by the setting of a threshold at a level which will fail to ensure that the objectives of the directive are achieved; a single threshold can therefore be set provided that it guarantees that all projects below the value thereby adopted have no significant effects on the environment. 57 Finally, the Republic of Poland states that all the selection criteria listed in Annex III to Directive 85/337 must be taken into account in the process of setting the threshold values. – Findings of the Court 58 A preliminary point to note is that, by the present complaint, the Commission criticises certain provisions of the Irish legislation transposing Directive 85/337 and does not seek a declaration that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive in relation to specific factual situations. 59 Consequently, Ireland’s line of argument that the Commission has not adequately established the factual basis for its action can only be rejected. Since the action for failure to fulfil obligations is concerned with the way in which Directive 85/337 has been transposed, and not with the actual result of the application of the legislation transposing it, it must be determined whether that legislation itself harbours the insufficiencies or defects in transposition of the directive which the Commission alleges, without any need to establish the actual effects of the legislation with regard to specific projects (see, to this effect, Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I-5901, paragraphs 59 and 60). 60 In that regard, it must be stated first of all that the project categories covered by the present action fall within Annex II to Directive 85/337. The action therefore concerns projects in respect of which, pursuant to Article 4(2) of the directive, the Member States determine, either through a case-by-case examination or through thresholds or criteria, whether an environmental impact assessment is required. Article 4(2) provides that Member States may also decide to apply both those procedures. 61 In accordance with settled case-law, where Member States have decided to have recourse to the establishment of thresholds and/or criteria, the limits of the measure of discretion which is thus conferred upon them are to be found in the obligation set out in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337 that projects likely, by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location, to have significant effects on the environment are to be subject to an impact assessment before consent is given (see, to this effect, in particular Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others [1996] ECR I‑5403, paragraph 50, and the judgment of 28 February 2008 in Case C-2/07 Abraham and Others, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 37). 62 In addition, pursuant to Article 4(3) of Directive 85/337, the Member States are under an obligation to take into account, when establishing those criteria or thresholds, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III to the directive. 63 Among those criteria, Annex III distinguishes (i) the characteristics of projects, which must be considered having regard, in particular, to their size, the cumulation with other projects, the use of natural resources, the production of waste, pollution and nuisances and the risk of accidents, (ii) the location of projects, so that the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by projects must be considered, having regard, in particular, to the existing land use and the absorption capacity of the natural environment, and (iii) the characteristics of the potential impact, having regard inter alia to the geographical area and the size of the population. 64 It follows that a Member State which, on the basis of Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337, established thresholds and/or criteria taking account only of the size of projects, without taking into consideration the criteria noted in paragraph 63 of the present judgment, would exceed the limits of its discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive (see, to this effect, Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland, paragraph 65). 65 Furthermore, a Member State which established those thresholds and/or criteria at a level such that, in practice, all projects of a certain type would be exempted in advance from the requirement of an impact assessment would likewise exceed the limits of that discretion, unless all the projects excluded could, when viewed as a whole, be regarded as not likely to have significant effects on the environment (see Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited). 66 It is clear from section 176 of the PDA, in conjunction with Article 93 of the PDR and paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 5 thereto, that Ireland has chosen, for projects falling within point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, to set, in respect of each project category, a threshold based exclusively on project size, below which an environmental impact assessment is not obligatory. 67 Under paragraph 1(a) and (b) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the PDR, the threshold is 100 hectares in relation to projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings and the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes and, under paragraph 1(c), the threshold is a catchment area of 1 000 hectares, or 20 hectares of affected wetland, in relation to water management projects for agriculture. 68 With a view to demonstrating that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations with regard to the present complaint, the Commission has set out some of the characteristics of the Irish countryside which show that projects of a size below the thresholds set by the Irish legislation are nevertheless likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of their nature or location, since they are liable to have a substantial, or even irreversible, impact on environmental factors such as fauna and flora, land or cultural heritage. 69 Thus, the Commission has established that projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings and projects for the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes may, regardless of their size, result in the loss of field boundaries, and therefore of hedgerows, a loss which is likely, in parts of the Irish countryside, to have significant effects on biodiversity. Nor does Ireland seriously contest that water management projects for agriculture are liable to entail significant effects on the environment, since they may lead to a loss of biodiversity. 70 It should be noted that, according to information supplied by the Commission and confirmed by studies, the average field size in Ireland is approximately 2.4 hectares. As the Commission has demonstrated, in particular at the hearing, the effect of setting, in particular for the restructuring of rural land holdings, a threshold of 100 hectares is that a project relating to the consolidation of around 40 fields, which would entail the destruction of numerous hedgerows and other means of enclosure, could be granted consent without having been subject to an environmental impact assessment, although it is such as to have significant effects on biodiversity. 71 Likewise, it is common ground that, in certain areas, stone walls predominate and may have a certain archaeological importance, as is attested in particular by a case study concerning the Dingle Peninsula in County Kerry (F.H.A. Aalen, K.Whelan and M. Stout, Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape, Cork University Press, 1997). Other studies establish a risk of accelerated destruction of archaeological remains that is directly connected with projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings and land drainage projects, although, in Annex III to Directive 85/337, subparagraph (h) of the third indent of point 2 mentions, among the selection criteria referred to in Article 4(3) of the directive, consideration of the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected by a given project in the light of the absorption capacity of the natural environment, paying particular attention to landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance. 72 It is also common ground that, in practice, projects falling within point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 are closely linked; the drainage of wetland thus often results in the use of semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes. 73 While, as Ireland asserts, in the case of projects falling within point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 that are of a size below the thresholds laid down by Schedule 5 to the PDR, planning authorities may apply Article 103 of the PDR in conjunction with Schedule 7 thereto and thus require submission of an environmental impact statement, such a possibility cannot be considered equivalent to a case-by-case examination complying with the Community requirements. 74 Those provisions of Irish legislation will be capable of applying only if the planning authorities have become aware of a project before it is carried out, and specifically if an application for consent has been made to them. 75 There is consequently no guarantee that, should those projects be likely to have significant effects on the environment, the competent authority will necessarily be able to require that an environmental impact assessment as provided for by Directive 85/337 be carried out before the decision entitling the developer to proceed with the project. 76 Furthermore, as Ireland acknowledges, it is apparent from Article 6 of the PDR in conjunction with Part 3 of Schedule 2 thereto that certain projects falling within point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to Directive 85/337 are exempt from any requirement for prior consent, a fact which in principle precludes, in their regard, compliance with the procedure involving development consent and the assessment of their effects on the environment that is established by Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337. 77 Ireland submits, however, that such exemptions, which thus have the effect in particular that no application for planning permission is required in respect of the projects concerned, do not apply where one of the safeguard clauses contained in Article 9 of the PDR is applicable to the carrying out of the project envisaged and that the effect of the application of the safeguard clauses is that only projects which are not likely to have significant effects on the environment can benefit from those exemptions. 78 It should be remembered at this point that while, in proceedings under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations it is for the Commission to prove the existence of the alleged infringement and to place before the Court the information necessary for it to determine whether the infringement is made out, and in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumption (see, to this effect, inter alia Case C-494/01 Commission v Ireland [2005] ECR I-3331, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited, and Case C-441/02 Commission v Germany [2006] ECR I‑3449, paragraph 48), the Member States are required, under Article 10 EC, to facilitate the achievement of the Commission’s tasks (see, inter alia, Case C‑494/01 Commission v Ireland, paragraph 42). It follows in particular that, where the Commission has adduced sufficient evidence of certain matters in the territory of the defendant Member State, it is incumbent on the latter to challenge in substance and in detail the information produced and the consequences flowing therefrom (Case C-494/01 Commission v Ireland, paragraph 44). 79 With regard to application of the safeguard clauses contained in Article 9 of the PDR, Ireland has not demonstrated that those clauses are such as to ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by Directive 85/337; it acknowledged moreover in the course of the procedure that recourse to an alternative strategy to implement the relevant provisions of the directive would have very significant implications for Irish agriculture and also stated that one of the Irish Government’s objectives is to minimise the regulatory burden on all sectors of the economy, particularly the agricultural sector. 80 Those clauses are subject to the fulfilment of a number of conditions which make their application too uncertain to be capable of being regarded as limiting the operation of the exemptions in such a way that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are systematically subject, before consent is given, to a requirement for development consent and an assessment of their environmental effects. 81 Most of those clauses are operative only where they fall within the framework of development plans drawn up by the planning authorities specifying that the protection of the matters of archaeological, geological, historical or ecological interest constitutes one of their objectives. 82 The carrying out of an environmental impact assessment in respect of a given project accordingly depends on the inclusion of those objectives in the development plan, and not solely on the effects which the project may have on the environment. Moreover, it should be pointed out that Ireland has supplied no information regarding the conservation objectives which development plans may have contained on the date when the period laid down in the reasoned opinion expired. 83 These factors are sufficient to establish that the application of the safeguard clauses contained in Article 9 of the PDR does not guarantee that the requirements of Directive 85/337 are observed with regard to projects falling within point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to the directive which are likely to have significant effects on the environment and in particular that they will be subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment of their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, despite the fact that, as is recalled in recital 1 in the preamble to Directive 97/11, the assessment procedure is a fundamental instrument of environmental policy. 84 The first complaint is therefore well founded. 85 It follows that, by setting thresholds which take account only of the size of projects – to the exclusion of the other criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 85/337 – for project categories covered by point 1(a) to (c) of Annex II to the directive and by not providing for a case-by-case examination for those project categories ensuring that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment do not escape an assessment of their environmental effects, Ireland has exceeded the limits of its discretion under Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive and has consequently not adopted all necessary measures to ensure that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment of their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive. The second complaint – Arguments of the parties 86 The Commission states with regard to intensive fish farming installations that the Aquaculture (Licence Application) Regulations, 1998 (S.I. No 236/1998), which transposed Directive 85/337 in relation to aquaculture, allow an environmental impact assessment to be carried out for such an installation if the competent minister considers that the proposed aquaculture is likely to have significant effects on the environment. 87 Since that legislation does not, however, contain any reference to the criteria set out in Annex III to the directive, the minister is under no express obligation to take account of them in his appraisal. 88 The Commission cites by way of example a trial salmon farm at Kenmare Bay in County Kerry. 89 Ireland acknowledges that, initially, Irish legislation did not expressly provide that, when the competent minister considered whether the proposed aquaculture was likely to have significant effects on the environment, he had to have regard to the selection criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 85/337. 90 Ireland explains, however, that following the entry into force of the Aquaculture (Licence Application) (Amendment) Regulations, 2006 (S.I. No 197/2006), the applicable provisions henceforth expressly state that the minister must have regard to those criteria. – Findings of the Court 91 First of all, it should be recalled that, in accordance with settled case-law, amendments to national legislation are irrelevant for the purposes of giving judgment on the subject-matter of an action for failure to fulfil obligations if they have not been implemented before the expiry of the period set by the reasoned opinion (see, in particular, Case C-392/96 Commission v Ireland, paragraph 86). It is thus inappropriate to take into account, for the purpose of assessing the merits of the present complaint, the amendments made to the Irish legislation in 2006. 92 As to the remainder, while the legislation referred to in paragraph 86 of the present judgment provides that the competent minister may require the submission of an environmental impact statement in the context to which the present complaint refers, it is not disputed by Ireland that the minister’s decision-making power is in no way circumscribed by that legislation. 93 In particular, it does not follow from the legislation itself that, when the competent minister examines on a case-by-case basis applications for permission relating to intensive fish farming installations, which are projects that fall within point 1(f) of Annex II to Directive 85/337, he must take account of the selection criteria laid down in Annex III to the directive. 94 Consequently, the second complaint is also well founded. 95 It follows from all of the foregoing considerations that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (4) of Directive 85/337, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by point 1(a) to (c) and (f) of Annex II to that directive are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive. Costs 96 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and Ireland has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs. Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the intervener in the present proceedings is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby: 1. Declares that, by not adopting, in conformity with Articles 2(1) and 4(2) to (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, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, all measures to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment that belong to the categories of projects covered by point 1(a) to (c) and (f) of Annex II to that directive are made subject to a requirement for development consent and to an assessment with regard to their environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs of the Commission of the European Communities; 3. Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.