35.

It may be seen from Article 2(2) of the EIA Directive that the environmental impact assessment may be integrated into the existing procedures for consent to projects in the Member States. In this case the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt followed the procedure prescribed in the FPPL for consent to projects. In the Commission's view, which is supported by academic writings, ( 20 ) the requirements with regard to environmental impact assessment laid down by the FPPL are not up to the standard of the requirements of the EIA Directive. Even if that were to be the case, however, that does not automatically mean that it may be taken as proved that the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt has infringed the directive in this specific case. The Commission has not proved that it is impossible to comply with both sets of rules at one and the same time. It is therefore necessary to compare the specific chain of events with the rules of the directive before it is possible to judge whether there is an infringement. In my view decisive importance must be attached to the fact that it is not contested that the information mentioned in Article 5(2) was supplied by the developer and thus was taken into consideration in the consent procedure. That information must inter alia concern the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first and second indents of Article 3: see in this respect the reference in Article 5(2) to Article 5(1), which again refers to Annex III to the directive. There it is stated in the latter part of paragraph 3 that the information shall include a description of the relationship — interaction — between the same factors as those mentioned in the first and second indents of Article 3. It must be emphasized that the provisions of the directive are essentially of a procedural nature. By the inclusion of information on the environment in the consent procedure it is ensured that the environmental impact of the project shall be included in the public debate and that the decision as to whether consent is to be given shall be adopted on an appropriate basis. The directive on the other hand can scarcely serve as an instrument for monitoring the content of consents issued on the basis of environmental criteria. ( 21 ) Even though the expression ‘must be taken into consideration’ in Article 8 of the directive must mean that the information gathered is to be subjected to an independent, critical examination, ( 22 ) the directive does not prevent the competent authority's giving consent to a project, even though the environmental impact assessment shows that the project will have negative effects on the environment. ( 23 ) It may be seen from the decision of 31 August 1989 that the Regierungsprasidium Darmstadt undertook a particularly extensive examination of the project and the objections put forward against it — see also the account produced by the German Government of the course of events leading up to the decision. It seems to me that the Commission has not provided the Court with any detailed substantiation of its argument that the information regarding the interaction between human beings, fauna and flora on the one hand and soil, water, air, climate and the landscape on the other which, it is not disputed, formed part of the consent procedure, was not also taken into consideration in connection with the consent for the project and thus included in the balancing of the various interests undertaken by the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt as part of the consent as well as being reflected in the conditions attached to the authorization. In this respect I would remind the Court that Article 9 of the directive leaves it to the Member States to lay down the extent to which decisions regarding consent to projects are to state the reasons on which they are based. It is thus only to the extent established by national law that there is an obligation to arrange for the decision to make clear the manner in which, in the individual case, the separate environmental factors and their interaction have been identified, described and assessed, and in what detail this information and the results of the hearings have been evaluated in connection with the decision. The fact that the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt has included (only) the reasons required by the FPPL, which was applicable at that time, cannot therefore be taken as an indication that the said information on the environment was not taken into consideration in the decision of 31 August 1989. I would observe in this respect that the Commission has not put forward any claim that Article 9 has been infringed. On those grounds, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary it must be assumed that the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt has caused the environmental information in question to be included in the basis for its decision and has thus taken it into consideration in connection with the consent procedure.