Case C-461/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Irlande) (Ireland) made on 28 July 2017 — Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan v An Bord Pleanála
Date: 2017-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal life, building permit, environmental impact, industrial project, plant life, protected area, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2017338EN.01001101.xml










9.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Irlande) (Ireland) made on 28 July 2017 — Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle, Liam Donegan v An Bord Pleanála
(Case C-461/17)
(2017/C 338/11)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Irlande)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Brian Holohan, Richard Guilfoyle, Noric Guilfoyle and Liam Donegan

Defendant: An Bord Pleanála

Questions referred







(a)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must identify the entire extent of the habitats and species for which the site is listed;










(b)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the potential impact on all species (as opposed to only protected species) which contribute to and are part of a protected habitat must be identified and discussed in a Natura Impact Statement;










(c)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a Natura impact statement must expressly address the impact of the proposed development on protected species and habitats both located on the SAC site as well as species and habitats located outside its boundaries;










(d)


whether Directive 2011/92/EU (2) of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact statement must expressly address whether the proposed development will significantly impact on the species identified in the statement;










(e)


whether an option that the developer considered and discussed in the environmental impact assessment, and/or that was argued for by some of the stakeholders, and/or that was considered by the competent authority, amounts to a ‘main alternative’ within the meaning of art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, even if it was rejected by the developer at an early stage;










(f)


whether Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, has the effect that an environmental impact assessment should contain sufficient information as to the environmental impact of each alternative as to enable a comparison to be made between the environmental desirability of the different alternatives; and/or that it must be made explicit in the environmental impact statement as to how the environmental effects of the alternatives were taken into account;










(g)


whether the requirement in art. 5(3)(d) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and Council of 13 December, 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended, that the reasons for the developer's choice must be made by ‘taking into account the environmental effects’, applies only to the chosen option or also to the main alternatives studied, so as to require the analysis of those options to address their environmental effects;










(h)


whether it is compatible with the attainment of the objectives of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended that details of the construction phase (such as the compound location and haul routes) can be left to post-consent decision, and if so whether it is open to a competent authority to permit such matters to be determined by unilateral decision by the developer, within the context of any development consent granted, to be notified to the competent authority rather than approved by it;










(i)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority is obliged to record, with sufficient detail and clarity to dispel any doubt as to the meaning and effect of such opinion, the extent to which scientific opinion presented to it argues in favour of obtaining further information prior to the grant of development consent;










(j)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that the competent authority is required to give reasons or detailed reasons for rejecting a conclusion by its inspector that further information or scientific study is required prior to the grant of development consent; and










(k)


whether Council Directive 92/43/EEC of the 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora as amended has the effect that a competent authority, when conducting an appropriate assessment, must provide detailed and express reasons for each element of its decision.






(1)  OJ L 206, p. 7


(2)  OJ L 26, p. 1