62024CJ0058_RES
Case C‑58/24
NEandMYandHJandXFandWBandUVandVKandJUandRJandDZ
v
IrelandandThe Attorney GeneralandMinister for Housing, Local Government and HeritageandAn Coimisiún Pleanála, formerly An Bord Pleanála
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland))
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 April 2026
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Environment – Directive 92/43/EEC – Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora – Article 12 – System of strict protection for certain animal species – Article 16 – Decision to grant a derogation in anticipation of a planning permission application for a project covered by Directive 2011/92/EU – Article 11 – Aarhus Convention – Article 9 – Procedural autonomy – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Derogation decision classified as an autonomous legal act – Procedural rules providing for a three-month period for seeking the annulment of a derogation licence)
Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 2011/92 – Obligation of the competent authority to carry out an assessment prior to granting consent – Concept of consent – Multi-stage decision-making process – Decision authorising a developer of a project to derogate from the species protection measures under Directive 92/43 – Included – Conditions
(European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, Arts 1(2)(a) and (c) and 2(1); Council Directive 92/43, Arts 12, 13 and 16(1))
(see paragraphs 26-28)
Environment – Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment – Directive 2011/92 – Right of members of the public concerned to bring proceedings – Action against a decision authorising a developer of a project to derogate from the species protection measures under Directive 92/43 – National rules of procedure – Principle of procedural autonomy – Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Period for bringing an action of three months from the date on which the person concerned knew of such a decision – Whether permissible
(Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 47, Aarhus Convention, Art. 9; European Parliament and Council Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52, Arts 1(2)(a) and 11; Council Directive 92/43, Art. 16)
(see paragraphs 29-40, 44-45, 52-53, operative part)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland), the Court of Justice rules on the compatibility with EU law of a national procedural rule imposing a three-month period for bringing an action against a derogation decision granted by the national authorities under Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive. (
1
)
In the dispute in the main proceedings, a group of natural persons is opposing a derogation decision granted by the Irish authorities under Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive to facilitate the construction of residential units at the former Carmelite monastery at Delgany (Ireland). That monastery is currently the location home to bats, an animal species strictly protected under Annex IV to the Habitats Directive.
The applicants in the main proceedings did not challenge the validity of the derogation decision at issue within the three-month period prescribed by Irish law. The referring court, entertaining doubts as to whether that derogation is in conformity with the requirements of the Habitats Directive, seeks to ascertain whether EU law precludes the application of such a procedural time limit.
Findings of the Court
The Court begins by noting that neither the EIA Directive (
2
) nor other provisions of EU law specify the detailed procedural rules governing actions against a derogation decision adopted under Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive or against a development consent decision within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of the EIA Directive. In particular, EU law does not specify either the period for bringing proceedings or the starting point of such a period.
Consequently, in the specific scenario where a possible derogation must be adopted prior to consent being given for a project, EU law does not require that those decisions be treated, for the purposes of exercising the right to bring proceedings against them, as a single decision, together with a single period for bringing an action.
Likewise, that law does not require that, where a derogation is granted under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive, which forms part of the development consent procedure for a project for the purposes of Article 1(2)(c) of the EIA Directive, the period for bringing an action must begin to run only from the adoption or publication of such development consent.
So far as concerns, in that connection, observance of the principle of effectiveness, the Court considers that a period for bringing an action of three months from the date of the adoption of a derogation decision under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive or, as the case may be, from the time when the applicant knew, or could reasonably have become aware, of that adoption does not appear to render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law.
According to the Court, the fact that such a period for bringing proceedings runs, in principle, before the completion of the development consent procedure, referred to in Article 1(2)(c) of the EIA Directive, does not appear to be such as to deprive of their effectiveness the proceedings which may thus be brought.
On the one hand, that circumstance does not preclude the compatibility of a derogation decision adopted under Article 16(1) of the Habitats Directive in the light of all the requirements to which its adoption is subject under that provision from being open to challenge by the public concerned and reviewed by the competent court.
On the other hand, while it is true that the corollary of that circumstance is that such a derogation becomes final upon expiry of the period for bringing proceedings, that same circumstance does not, however, mean that the consent for the project, within the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of the EIA Directive, cannot be challenged by the public concerned and reviewed by a court in an effective manner, in particular in the light of the possible interaction between the various environmental effects of a project.
The Court nevertheless emphasises that, in order for the period for bringing proceedings to begin to run, it is important that that knowledge, or indeed that possibility of having become aware, relate not only to the operative part but also to the grounds of the decision at issue. Such knowledge or awareness is a precondition for the effectiveness of the right to bring proceedings.
Furthermore, in order for the principle of effectiveness to be observed, it is also important that applicants can reasonably foresee the legal remedies available to them and the time limits applicable to them.
In that regard, in so far as Article 9(5) of the Aarhus Convention (
3
) provides that each party to that convention is to ensure that information is provided to the public on access to administrative or judicial review procedures – a requirement implemented, in the specific context of the EIA Directive, in Article 11(5) thereof – that information should state that the bringing of proceedings against a derogation decision under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive must be done within three months of the time when the applicant knew, or could reasonably have become aware, of the adoption of that decision.
However, as is apparent from the wording of Article 9(5) of the Aarhus Convention, and of Article 11(5) of the EIA Directive, the failure to make such information available to the public is not sufficient, in itself, to infer that the principle of effectiveness has been infringed.
(
1
)	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; ‘the Habitats Directive’).
(
2
)	Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1; ‘the EIA Directive’).
(
3
)	Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, signed at Aarhus 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).