CELEX: 62021CN0721
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-721/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 November 2021 — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála

11.4.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 158/2
            
         
      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 November 2021 — Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála
      (Case C-721/21)
      (2022/C 158/03)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Referring court
      
      High Court (Irlande)
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Eco Advocacy CLG
      
         Respondent: An Bord Pleanála
      
         Notice party: Keegan Land Holdings
      
         Other parties: An Taisce — The National Trust for Ireland, ClientEarth AISBL
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  i.
               
               
                  Does the general principle of the primacy of EU law and/or of cooperation in good faith have the effect that, either generally or in the specific context of environmental law, where a party brings proceedings challenging the validity of an administrative measure by reference, expressly or impliedly, to a particular instrument of EU law, but does not specify which provisions of the instrument have been infringed, or by reference to which precise interpretation, the domestic court before which proceedings are brought must, or may, examine the complaint, notwithstanding any rule of domestic procedure requiring the specific breaches concerned to be set out in the party's written pleadings.
               
            
                  ii.
               
               
                  If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 (1) and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reasons of the competent authority.
               
            
                  iii.
               
               
                  If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 4(2), (3), (4) and/or (5) and/or Annex III of the EIA directive 2011/92 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of environmental impact assessment, there is an obligation to expressly set out consideration of all specific headings and sub-headings in annex III of the EIA directive, insofar as those headings and sub-headings are potentially relevant to the development.
               
            
                  iv.
               
               
                  Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC (2) is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the application of the principle that in order to determine whether it is necessary to carry out, subsequently, an appropriate assessment of the implications, for a site concerned, of a plan or project, it is not appropriate, at the screening stage, to take account of the measures intended to avoid or reduce the harmful effects of the plan or project on that site, the competent authority of a member state is entitled to take account of features of the plan or project involving the removal of contaminants that may have the effect of reducing harmful effects on the European site solely on the grounds that those features are not intended as mitigation measures even if they have that effect, and that they would have been incorporated in the design as standard features irrespective of any effect on the European site concerned.
               
            
                  v.
               
               
                  Whether art. 6(3) of directive 92/43/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that, where the competent authority of a member state is satisfied notwithstanding the questions or concerns expressed by expert bodies in holding at the screening stage that no appropriate assessment is required, the authority must give an explicit and detailed statement of reasons capable of dispelling all reasonable scientific doubt concerning the effects of the works envisaged on the European site concerned, and that expressly and individually removes each of the doubts raised in that regard during the public participation process.
               
            
                  vi.
               
               
                  If the answer to the first question is ‘Yes’, whether art. 6 (3) of the habitats directive 92/43 and/or the directive read in the light of the principle of legal certainty and good administration under art. 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has the consequence that, where a competent authority decides not to subject a proposal for development consent to the process of appropriate assessment, there should be an express, discrete and/or specific statement as to what documents exactly set out the reason of the competent authority.
               
            
         (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, p. 1).
      
         (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992, L 206, p. 7).