Case C-379/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — National measure incompatible with EU law — Legal consequences — Power of the national court to maintain certain effects of that measure provisionally — Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU — Obligation to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2016-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU law - national law, application of EU law, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, ordinary court of law








C_2016350EN.01001101.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association France Nature Environnement v Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie
(Case C-379/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - National measure incompatible with EU law - Legal consequences - Power of the national court to maintain certain effects of that measure provisionally - Third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU - Obligation to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling))
(2016/C 350/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association France Nature Environnement

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Operative part of the judgment







1.


A national court may, when this is allowed by domestic law, exceptionally and case by case, limit in time certain effects of a declaration of the illegality of a provision of national law adopted in disregard of the obligations provided for by Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, in particular the obligations arising from Article 6(3) of the directive, provided that such a limitation is dictated by an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and having regard to the specific circumstances of the case pending before it. That exceptional power may, however, be exercised only if all the conditions flowing from the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103) are satisfied, namely;






—


the contested provision of national law constitutes a measure correctly transposing EU law on environmental protection;










—


that the adoption and coming into force of a new provision of national law do not make it possible to avoid the damaging effects on the environment arising from annulment of the contested provision of national law;










—


that annulment of the contested provision of national law would have the effect of creating a legal vacuum concerning the transposition of EU law on environmental protection which would be more damaging to the environment, in the sense that that annulment would result in lesser protection and would thus run counter to the essential objective of EU law; and










—


that any exceptional maintaining of the effects of the contested provision of national law lasts only for the period strictly necessary for the adoption of the measures making it possible to remedy the irregularity found.














2.


As EU law now stands, a national court against whose decisions there is no longer any judicial remedy under law is in principle required to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling, so that the Court may assess whether, exceptionally, provisions of national law held to be contrary to EU law may be provisionally maintained in the light of an overriding consideration linked to environmental protection and in view of the specific circumstances of the case pending before that national court. That national court is relieved of that obligation only when it is convinced, which it must establish in detail, that no reasonable doubt exists as to the interpretation and application of the conditions set out in the judgment of 28 February 2012 in Inter-Environnement Wallonie and Terre wallonne (C-41/11, EU:C:2012:103).






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.