Case C‑671/16

Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL and Others

v

Brussels Capital Region

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 2(a) — Concept of ‘plans and programmes’ — Article 3 — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Regional town planning regulations relating to the European Quarter, Brussels (Belgium))

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 7 June 2018

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Directive 2001/42 — Plans and programmes — Definition — Regional town planning regulations laying down certain requirements for the completion of building projects — Included

(European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/42, Arts 2(a) and 3(1) and (2)(a))

On a proper construction of Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, regional town planning regulations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, laying down certain requirements for the completion of building projects, fall under the definition of ‘plans and programmes’ which are likely to have significant environmental effects within the meaning of that directive and must, consequently, be subjected to an environmental impact assessment.

It should be noted that Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive provides that a systematic environmental assessment is to be carried out for all plans and programmes which (i) are prepared for certain sectors and (ii) set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 June 2010, Terre wallonne and Inter-Environnement Wallonie, C‑105/09 and C‑110/09, EU:C:2010:355, paragraph 43).

Regarding the first of those conditions, it follows from the wording of Article 3(2)(a) of the SEA Directive that that provision covers, in particular, ‘town and country planning or land use’.

As the European Commission notes, the fact that that provision refers both to ‘town and country planning’ and ‘land use’ clearly shows that the sector mentioned is not limited to land use sensu stricto, namely the dividing of land into zones and the defining of activities permitted within those zones, but necessarily covers a broader field.

Concerning the second of those conditions, in order to establish whether regional town planning regulations, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive, it is necessary to examine the content and purpose of those regulations, taking into account the scope of the environmental assessment of projects as provided for by that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 June 2010, Terre wallonne and Inter-Environnement Wallonie, C‑105/09 and C‑110/09, EU:C:2010:355, paragraph 45).

Concerning, in the first place, the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive, it should be borne in mind that infrastructure projects are listed under Title 10 of that second annex, including, under point (b) of that title, urban development projects.

In the second place, regarding the question whether the contested decree sets the framework for future development consent of such projects, the Court has already held that the notion of ‘plans and programmes’ relates to any measure which establishes, by defining rules and procedures for scrutiny applicable to the sector concerned, a significant body of criteria and detailed rules for the grant and implementation of one or more projects likely to have significant effects on the environment (judgment of 27 October 2016, D’Oultremont and Others, C‑290/15, EU:C:2016:816, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).

That interpretation of the concept of ‘plans and programmes’ is intended to ensure, as was noted by the Advocate General in point 23 of her Opinion, that provisions which are likely to have significant effects on the environment are subject to an environmental assessment.

Therefore, as was noted by the Advocate General in points 25 and 26 of her Opinion, the concept of ‘a significant body of criteria and detailed rules’ must be construed qualitatively and not quantitatively. It is necessary to avoid strategies which may be designed to circumvent the obligations laid down in the SEA Directive by splitting measures, thereby reducing the practical effect of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 October 2016, D’Oultremont and Others, C‑290/15, EU:C:2016:816, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

Moreover, the fact that RZTPRs, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, contain general rules, express some abstract ideas, and pursue an objective of transforming an area is illustrative of their planning and programming aspect and does not prevent them from being included in the definition of ‘plans and programmes’.

Furthermore, an environmental impact assessment report completed under the EIA Directive cannot be used to circumvent the obligation to carry out the environmental assessment required under the SEA Directive in order to address environmental aspects specific to that directive.

(see paras 41-43, 46, 47, 53-55, 60, 65, 67, operative part)