CELEX: 62015CN0645
Language: en
Date: 2015-12-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-645/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2015 — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern

7.3.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 90/5
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2015 — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-645/15)
   (2016/C 090/08)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde
   
      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Should Point 7(c) of Annex I to 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 (the ‘EIA Directive’) be interpreted as covering also the widening of existing roads with four or more lanes?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Point 7(c) of Annex I to the EIA Directive more specific than Point 7(b) of Annex I to that directive and does it for that reason take priority in application?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative:
               Does the term ‘express road’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose that the road section in question is a main international traffic artery within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are answered in the negative:
               Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive apply to road-widening under which the existing route of the road does not undergo any significant alteration?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative:
               Does the term ‘construction’ in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive presuppose a minimum length with regard to the road section in question? If so, must this involve a continuous section of road? If so, is the minimum length more than a continuous length of 2,6 kilometres or, where the lengths of multiple separate sections of road are to be added together, more than a total of 4,4 kilometres?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               If Question 5 is answered in the negative:
               Does the second reference in Point 7(b) of Annex I to the EIA Directive (construction of express roads) apply to a road-widening measure within a built-up area within the meaning of the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.