Case C‑167/17

Volkmar Klohn

v

An Bord Pleanála

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Concept — Temporal application — Direct effect — Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 October 2018

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 85/337 — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Failure to transpose — Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final — National costs procedure distinguishing between how costs are to be borne and the fixing of their amount — Duty for the court ruling on the amount of costs to interpret national law in conformity with a directive — Limits — Force of res judicata attaching to the decision as to how the costs are to be borne which has become final

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 85/337 — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Failure to transpose — Duty to interpret national law in conformity with a directive — Temporal application

Acts of the institutions — Directives — Temporal application — Immediate application of the new rule to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule — Measures taken to transpose a directive — Failure to transpose — Duty to interpret national law in conformity with a directive — Scope — Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — None

Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 85/337 — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Direct effect — None — Duty to interpret national law in conformity with a directive — Scope — Coming into existence of the obligation — Date on which the transposition period expires

See the text of the decision. (see para. 35)

The fifth paragraph of Article 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, 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 the requirement that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive which it lays down does not have direct effect. Where that article has not been transposed by a Member State, the national courts of that Member State are nonetheless required to interpret national law to the fullest extent possible, once the time limit for transposing that article has expired, in such a way that persons should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts, which falls within the scope of that article, by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result. (see para. 36, operative part 1)

Where no implementing measure has been adopted before the time limit laid down by a directive, as is the case in the main proceedings, it must be considered that the obligation to interpret national law in conformity with the untransposed rule applies also in the conditions referred to in paragraphs 39 and 40 of the present judgment, as from the expiry of that time limit. In that situation, the national court is under an obligation to interpret national law, so far as possible, in order to achieve the result sought by the untransposed provisions of a directive, as pointed out in paragraph 35 of the present judgment. The immediate applicability of a new rule stemming from a directive to the future effects of existing situations, as from the expiry of the time limit for transposing that directive, forms part of that result, unless the directive concerned has provided otherwise. Consequently, national courts are required to interpret national law, as soon as the time limit for transposing an untransposed directive expires, so as to render the future effects of situations which arose under the old rule immediately compatible with the provisions of that directive. (see paras 43-45)

The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s courts are under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive, when deciding on the allocation of costs in judicial proceedings which were ongoing as at the date on which the time limit for transposing the requirement, laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 10a, that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive expired, irrespective of the date on which those costs were incurred during the proceedings concerned. (see para. 55, operative part 2)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 59-65)