Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) (Belgium)) - Marie-Noëlle Solvay and Others v Région wallonne
(Case C-182/10) 
(Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment - Concept of legislative act - Force and effect of the guidance in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide - Consent for a project given without an appropriate assessment of its effects on the environment - Access to justice in environmental matters - Extent of the right to a review procedure - Habitats Directive - Plan or project affecting the integrity of the site - Imperative reason of overriding public interest)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Jean-Marie Solvay de la Hulpe, Alix Walsh, Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l'Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL - A.R.A.Ch, Grégoire Stassin, André Gilliard, Paul Fastrez, Henriette Fastrez, Gouvernement flamand, Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL, Nicole Laloux, François Gevers, Annabelle Denoël-Gevers, Marc Traversin, Joseph Melard, Chantal Michiels, Thierry Regout, René Canfin, Georges Lahaye, Jeanine Postelmans, Christophe Dehousse, Christine Lahaye, Jean-Marc Lesoinne, Jacques Teheux, Anne-Marie Larock, Bernadette Mestdag, Jean-François Seraffin, Françoise Mahoux, Ferdinand Wallraf, Mariel Jeanne, Agnès Fortemps, Georges Seraffin, Jeannine Melen, Groupement Cerexhe-Heuseux/Beaufays ASBL, Action et Défense de l'Environnement de la vallée de la Senne et de ses affluents ASBL, Réserves naturelles RNOB ASBL, Stéphane Banneux, Zénon Darquenne, Philippe Daras, Bernard Croiselet, Bernard Page, Intercommunale du Brabant Wallon SCRL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, La Hulpe, Notre village ASBL, André Philips, Charleroi South Air Pur ASBL, Pierre Grymonprez, Sartau SA, Philippe Grisard de la Rochette, Antoine Boxus, Pierre Deneye, Jean-Pierre Olivier, Paul Thiry, Willy Roua, Guido Durlet, Agrebois SA, Yves de la Court
Defendant: Région wallonne
Intervening parties: Infrabel SA, Codic Belgique SA, Federal Express European Services Inc. (FEDEX), Société wallonne des aéroports (Sowaer), Société régionale wallonne du transport (SRWT), Société Intercommunale du Brabant wallon (IBW)
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cour constitutionnelle (formerly Cour d'arbitrage) - Interpretation of Articles 2(2), 3(9), 6(9) and 9(2), (3) and (4) of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in the decision-making process and access to justice in environmental matters concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1) - Interpretation of Articles 1(5), 9(1) and 10a 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) - Interpretation of Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) - Concept of 'public authority' - Value and scope of the guidance given in the Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide - Whether legislative acts such as town-planning or environmental consents granted by means of decree by a regional legislature are outside the scope of the Aarhus Convention - Whether a procedure leading to the granting of consents which can be challenged only by an action brought before the Cour constitutionnelle and the ordinary courts is compatible with the Convention and with Community law - Project authorised without an appropriate environmental impact assessment
Operative part of the judgment
For the interpretation of Articles 2(2) and 9(4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, it is permissible to take the Implementation Guide for that Convention into consideration, but that Guide has no binding force and does not have the normative effect of the provisions of that Convention.
Article 2(2) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 1(5) 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 Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that only projects the details of which have been adopted by a specific legislative act, in such a way that the objectives of the Convention and the directive have been achieved by the legislative process, are excluded from the scope of those instruments. It is for the national court to verify that those two conditions have been satisfied, taking account both of the content of the legislative act adopted and of the entire legislative process which led to its adoption, in particular the preparatory documents and parliamentary debates. In that regard, a legislative act which does no more than simply 'ratify' a pre-existing administrative act, by merely referring to overriding reasons in the public interest without a substantive legislative process enabling those conditions to be fulfilled having first been commenced, cannot be regarded as a specific act of legislation within the meaning of the latter provision and is therefore not sufficient to exclude a project from the scope of that Convention and that directive as amended.
Articles 3(9) and 9(2) to (4) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that:
when a project falling within the scope of those provisions is adopted by a legislative act, the question whether that legislative act satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 1(5) of that directive as amended must be capable of being submitted, under the national procedural rules, to a court of law or an independent and impartial body established by law, and
if no review procedure of the nature and scope set out above were available in respect of such an act, any national court before which an action falling within its jurisdiction is brought would have the task of carrying out the review described in the previous indent and, as the case may be, drawing the necessary conclusions by disapplying that legislative act.
Article 6(9) of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters and Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as not requiring that the decision should itself contain the reasons for the competent authority's decision that it was necessary. However, if an interested party so requests, the competent authority is obliged to communicate to him the reasons for that decision or the relevant information and documents in response to the request made.
Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as not allowing a national authority, even if it is a legislative authority, to authorise a plan or project without having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.
Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that the creation of infrastructure intended to accommodate a management centre cannot be regarded as an imperative reason of overriding public interest, such reasons including those of a social or economic nature, within the meaning of that provision, capable of justifying the implementation of a plan or project that will adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned.
____________
1 - OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.