Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2004:13
Date: 2004-01-08
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Environment;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Italy

summary of the facts. 34 – That expression is repeated several times in the document. 35 – The fact that, in this case, there is a specific act (Decree 25/99) means that it is not necessary to consider the issue of administrative silence which the defendant Government raises in the defence. However, the observations I will go on to make in this paragraph of the Opinion make it clear that silence by way of a response is not admissible, under the scheme of the Directive, as a means of excluding the requirement that a project must be assessed for its effects on the environment. 36 – The importance of the environment is reflected in the EC Treaty, which, since the Single European Act, has a whole title on the environment (Title XIX of Part Three), aimed at promoting its protection and improvement, at protecting human health, and at promoting prudent and rational use of natural resources (Article 174(1)). 37 – See Paragraph 20a of the Fundamental Law of the Federal Republic of Germany; Article 45(2) of the Spanish Constitution; Article 14a of the Finnish Charter of Government of 17 July 1919 (the Finnish Constitution); Article 24(1) of the Greek Constitution; Article 21 of the Fundamental Law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; and Article 9(e) of the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic. 38 – Article 45(1) of the Spanish Constitution confers the right to enjoy an acceptable environment. Article 66 of the Portuguese Constitution makes a similar declaration. In Sweden, Article 18(3) of Chapter Two of the Law of 24 November 1994 provides that everyone has the right of access to nature. 39 – OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1. 40 – See Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1, and Case 6/64 Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR 1141. On the direct effect of directives, see Case 8/81 Becker [1982] ECR 53. 41 – See Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629. 42 – See paragraph 7 of the order in Case C-180/97 Regione Toscana v Commission [1997] ECR I-5245, cited in paragraph 45 of the application. 43 – Consolidated version published in OJ 2003 C 193, p. 1.