Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:838
Date: 2016-11-08
Language of the case: Slovak
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Environment
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Slovakia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 November 2016 1. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Conditions — Prior examination — Assessment of the project’s implications for the site (Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, Art. 6(3)) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for an interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legal situation having a connection with EU law — Jurisdiction of the Court upheld (Arts 4(3) TEU and 19(1) TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51(1); Aarhus Convention, Art. 6(1)(b); Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, Art. 6(3)) 3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute (Art. 267 TFEU) 4. Environment — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Directive 92/43 — Authorisation for a plan or project on a protected site — Administrative procedure — Request of an environmental organisation for the status of party to the procedure — Automatic rejection following the conclusion of the procedure, with the consequence that it is not possible for that organisation to bring an action — Not permissible — Infringement of the right to effective judicial protection (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47; Aarhus Convention, Arts 2(5), 6(1)(b) and 9(2) and (4); Council Directive 92/43, as amended by Directive 2006/105, Art. 6(3)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 42, 66) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 50-53, 65) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 64) 4. Inasmuch as Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 9(2) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, enshrines the right to effective judicial protection, in conditions ensuring wide access to justice, of the rights which an environmental organisation meeting the conditions laid down in Article 2(5) of that convention derives from EU law, in this instance from Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended by Directive 2006/105, read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of that convention, it must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of rules of national procedural law to the effect that an action against a decision refusing such an organisation the status of party to an administrative procedure for authorisation of a project that is to be carried out on a site protected pursuant to Directive 92/43 as amended by Directive 2006/105 does not necessarily have to be examined during the course of that procedure, which may be definitively concluded before a definitive judicial decision on possession of the status of party is adopted, and is automatically dismissed as soon as that project is authorised, thereby requiring that organisation to bring an action of another type in order to obtain that status and to secure judicial review of compliance by the competent national authorities with their obligations stemming from Article 6(3) of that directive. (see para. 73, operative part)