Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Directive 90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information on the environment — Request for information — Requirement to give reasons in the event of refusal — Mandatory time-limit — Failure of a public authority to respond within the time-limit for reply — Implied refusal — Fundamental right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2005-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, action brought before an administrative court, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, legal action, national law, public administration, right to information

9.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

2. Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure
the application of Articles 4, 8, 9 and 13 of Directive 75/442,
as amended by Directive 91/156, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive with respect to
the uncontrolled landfill
in Olvera, Province of Cadiz (Auton-
omous Community of Andalusia).

2. The decision referred to in Article 4 of Directive 90/313, against
which a judicial or administrative review may be sought by the
person who made the request
is the implied
refusal which arises from the failure by the public authority compe-
tent to decide on that request to respond within two months.

for information,

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

legislation according to which,

3. Article 3(4) of Directive 90/313, in conjunction with Article 4
thereof, does not preclude, in a situation such as that in the main
proceedings, national
the
purposes of granting effective judicial protection, the failure of a
public authority to respond within a period of two months is
deemed to give rise to an implied refusal which may be the subject
of a judicial or administrative review in accordance with the
national
legal system. However, by virtue of Article 3(4) it is
unlawful for such a decision not to be accompanied by reasons
when the two-month time-limit expires. In those circumstances,
the implied refusal must be regarded as unlawful.

for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-186/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d'État in Pierre Housieaux v Délégués du
conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (1)

(Directive 90/313/EEC — Freedom of access to information
on the environment — Request for information — Require-
ment to give reasons in the event of refusal — Mandatory
time-limit — Failure of a public authority to respond within
the time-limit for reply — Implied refusal — Fundamental
right to effective judicial protection)

(2005/C 171/09)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-186/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by deci-
sion of 1 April 2004, received at the Court on 22 April 2004,
in the proceedings between Pierre Housieaux and Délégués du
conseil de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale interested parties: —
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris,
G. Arestis and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April
2005, in which it ruled:

1. The two-month time-limit laid down in Article 3(4) of Council
Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access
to information on the environment is mandatory.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 4 May 2005

in Case C-335/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/43/EC — Failure to transpose within the period
prescribed)

(2005/C 171/10)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-335/04, Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Republic of
Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) — action for failure to fulfil obliga-
tions brought pursuant to Article 226 EC on 30 July 2004 —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta,
President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 4 May 2005, in which it: