Case C-514/25, EDEKA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2025 – DB v Stadt Euskirchen
Date: 2025-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action brought before an administrative court, administrative court, building permit, development plan, environmental impact, environmental protection, limitation of legal proceedings, right to justice








C_202505933EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5933


17.11.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 29 July 2025 – DB v Stadt Euskirchen


(Case C-514/25, EDEKA)

(C/2025/5933)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DB

Defendant: Stadt Euskirchen

Joined party: EDEKA Rhein-Ruhr eG

Questions referred







1.


Is EU law, in particular the principle of fair and equitable judicial proceedings in environmental matters laid down in EU law, to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible for the Member States to provide in procedural law that an individual applicant challenging consent granted to an urban development project which is subject, under national law, to a preliminary assessment pursuant to Article 4(2) and point 10(b) of Annex II of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment], is precluded from making his or her claim if he or she does not comply with a ten-week period for stating the grounds for the action after it has been lodged (Paragraph 6 of the German Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfgesetz ‘UmwRG’)?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Does a Member State exceed its procedural autonomy in the organisation of its procedural law in environmental matters, as guaranteed by EU law, if it fails to provide the individual applicant referred to in Question 1, who does not have to be represented by a lawyer in proceedings before the administrative court at first instance, with information regarding the conditions for and the effect of intra-procedural preclusion under Paragraph 6 of the UmwRG?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative and Question 2 is answered in the negative:
Is EU law, in particular the principle of fair and equitable judicial proceedings in environmental matters laid down in EU law, to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible for a national court to preclude the claim made by an individual applicant referred to in Question 1, by reason of exceeding the ten-week period for stating the grounds for the action under Paragraph 6 of the UmwRG, even though that court had previously granted the individual applicant, at his or her request, generous periods for stating the grounds for the action after inspection of the files, which it extended several times?










4.


If Questions 1 to 3 are to be answered to the effect that preclusion under Paragraph 6 of the UmwRG is possible:
Does EU law, in particular Article 11(3) of Directive 2011/92/EU, Article 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, establish a right of action for the individual applicant in environmental matters if he or she (after his or her other claims have been precluded) challenges ‘in isolation’ a preliminary assessment for an urban development project, which the authority conducted under national law in conjunction with Article 4(2) and point 10(b) of Annex II of Directive 2011/92/EU, and, in doing so, assessed the noise pollution to which the applicant is exposed as acceptable?






(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, pp. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5933/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)