Case C-507/25, Protect East Meath: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 23 July 2025 – Alex Thompson, Shahla Thompson v An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General
Date: 2025-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, UN convention, administrative transparency, discretionary power, environmental impact, environmental protection, industrial project, national law, principle of legal certainty








C_202506154EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/6154


24.11.2025






Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court (Ireland) made on 23 July 2025 – Alex Thompson, Shahla Thompson v An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General


(Case C-507/25, Protect East Meath)

(C/2025/6154)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Alex Thompson, Shahla Thompson

Defendants: An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland, Attorney General

Notice parties: X.X., Y.X., Friends of the Irish Environment, Protect East Meath Limited

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 41 and/or 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Articles 6 and/or 11 of Directive 2011/92 (1) read in the light of the general EU law principle of legal certainty and/or of Articles 6 and/or 9 the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370 (2), have the effect, in the context of a challenge (based on Directive 2011/92, Council Directive 92/43 (3), Directive 79/409 (4) and/or Directive 2008/50 (5)) to a development consent for a project where the need for environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92 was rejected at preliminary examination stage under national law corresponding to Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92 (insofar as it provides that Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under Articles 4(4) and (5), or an environmental impact assessment) and where the need for appropriate assessment under Directive 92/43 was screened out, of requiring either the specification in the domestic law of a Member State of a reasonably contemporaneous, or any, time limit for each channel of notification of a decision if domestic law provides that the time for challenge runs from the date of the decision rather than its notification, or alternatively of requiring provision in the domestic law of a Member State for time to run from notification in respect of any decision where the time for any channel of notification is discretionary?










2.


Do Articles 41 and/or 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Articles 6 and/or 11 of Directive 2011/92 read in the light of the general EU law principle of legal certainty and/or of Articles 6 and/or 9 the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, have the effect, in the context of a challenge (based on Directive 2011/92, Council Directive 92/43, Directive 79/409 and/or Directive 2008/50) to a development consent for a project where the need for environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92 was rejected at preliminary examination stage under national law corresponding to Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92 (insofar as it provides that Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under Articles 4(4) and (5), or an environmental impact assessment) and where the need for appropriate assessment under Directive 92/43 was screened out, of requiring the domestic law of a Member State to make provision for a power, in the event that the national authorities fail to notify a participant in the process of a decision within the period specified in domestic law in respect of any channel of notification so specified, to extend the limitation period for the bringing of the challenge for such limited period as is required to compensate for the time lost between the date on which the applicant ought to have been notified and the date on which she was notified and/or otherwise became aware of the decision?










3.


Do Articles 41 and/or 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Articles 6 and/or 11 of Directive 2011/92 read in the light of the general EU law principle of legal certainty and/or of Articles 6 and/or 9 the Aarhus Convention as approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370, have the effect, in the context of a challenge (based on Directive 2011/92, Council Directive 92/43, Directive 79/409 and/or Directive 2008/50) to a development consent for a project where the need for environmental impact assessment under Directive 2011/92 was rejected at preliminary examination stage under national law corresponding to Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/92 (insofar as it provides that Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under Articles 4(4) and (5), or an environmental impact assessment) and where the need for appropriate assessment under Directive 92/43 was screened out, of precluding a Member State from excluding by its domestic law the possibility of extension of time to bring the challenge in circumstances where the applicant fails to show that they could not have brought the proceedings prior to the expiry of the limitation period even in the event that the national authorities fail to notify a participant in the process of a decision within the period specified in domestic law in respect of any channel of notification so specified?






(1)  
            OJ 2012, L 26, p.1.

(2)  
            OJ 2005, L 124, p.1.

(3)  
            OJ 1992, L 206, p.7.

(4)  
            OJ 1979, L 103, p.1.

(5)  
            OJ 2008, L 152, p.1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/6154/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)