Case C-2/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and Others, Régine Lecomte, Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développement et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more than 2100 metres in length)
Date: 2008-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, airport, environmental impact, impact study, interpretation of the law, project evaluation, public-private partnership, transport infrastructure

C 107/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux,
Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and
Others, Régine Lecomte,
Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse
Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude
Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire,
Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert,
Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développe-
ment et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.
N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale
belge, Cargo
des voies

aériennes-Belgocontrol, État

Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07) (1)

the effects of
(Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more
than 2 100 metres in length)

(2008/C 107/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck,
and Others., Régine
Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps
Lecomte,
Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber,
Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc
Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia,
Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto

Defendants: Région wallonne, Société de développement et de
promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express
Worldwide
(Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies
aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Inter-
pretation of Articles 1, 2 and 4 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) — Notion of ‘project liable to have
significant effects on the environment’ — Airport with a
runway of more than 2 100 metres in length — Work on infra-
structures and work to restructure an existing airport without
extension of the runway — Requirement for an impact assess-
ment

85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the
national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national
legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development
consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337. It
is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms
part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a prin-
cipal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is
to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact
on the environment must be assessed globally.

2) Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I,
to Directive 85/337,
in their original version, also encompasses
works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without
extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular
because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification
of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed
at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic.
It is for the national court to establish that the competent authori-
ties correctly assessed whether the works at
issue in the main
proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assess-
ment.

3) The competent authorities have to take account of the projected
increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environ-
mental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a
view to accommodating that increase in activity.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February
2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission

(Case C-17/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Contract staff
— Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB)
— Recruitment procedure — Rejection of candidature —
Action for annulment — Action for damages)

(2008/C 107/09)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the judgment

Parties

1) While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceed-
ings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive

Appellant: Wineke Neirinck (represented by: G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, avocats)