EN Official Journal of the European Union C 331/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Republic of Lithuania) — Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Petras Girinskis, Laurynas Arimantas Lašas v Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, Šiaulių visuomenės sveikatos centras, Šiaulių regiono aplinkos apsaugos departamentas

(Case C-295/10) (1)

(Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Plans which determine the use of small areas at local level - Article 3(3) - Documents relating to land planning at local level relating to only one subject of economic activity - Assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC precluded in national law - Member States’ discretion - Article 3(5) - Link with Directive 85/337/EEC - Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42/EC)

2011/C 331/07

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Genovaitė Valčiukienė, Julija Pekelienė, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Petras Girinskis, Laurynas Arimantas Lašas

Defendants: Pakruojo rajono savivaldybė, Šiaulių visuomenės sveikatos centras, Šiaulių regiono aplinkos apsaugos departamentas

Intervener: Sofita UAB, Oltas UAB, Šiaulių apskrities viršininko administracija, Rimvydas Gasparavičius, Rimantas Pašakinskas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 11 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 (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) and 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) — Whether or not it is necessary to carry out an assessment under Directive 2001/42/EC after an assessment has been carried out under Directive 85/337/EEC — National legislation which provides that it is not necessary to carry out a strategic environmental impact assessment of documents relating to land planning at local level if those documents relate to only one subject of economic activity

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 3(5) 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, in conjunction with Article 3(3) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that in question in the main proceedings, which provides, in fairly general terms and without assessment of each case, that assessment under that directive is not to be carried out where mention is made, in the land planning documents applied to small areas of land at local level, of only one subject of economic activity.

2. Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as meaning that an environmental assessment carried out under 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 Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, does not dispense with the obligation to carry out such an assessment under Directive 2001/42. However, it is for the referring court to assess whether an assessment which has been carried out pursuant to Directive 85/337, as amended, may be considered to be the result of a coordinated or joint procedure and whether it already complies with all the requirements of Directive 2001/42. If that were to be the case, there would then no longer be an obligation to carry out a new assessment pursuant to Directive 2001/42.

3. Article 11(2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as not placing Member States under an obligation to provide, in national law, for joint or coordinated procedures in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2001/42 and Directive 85/337, as amended.

(1) OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.