CELEX: 62017CA0167
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-167/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Right to challenge a development consent decision — Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive — Concept — Temporal application — Direct effect — Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final)

17.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 455/11
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Volkmar Klohn v An Bord Pleanála
      (Case C-167/17) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Right to challenge a development consent decision - Requirement for a procedure which is not prohibitively expensive - Concept - Temporal application - Direct effect - Effect on a national decision on the taxation of costs which has become final))
      (2018/C 455/17)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Referring court
      
      Supreme Court
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: Volkmar Klohn
      
         Defendant: An Bord Pleanála
      
         Interveners: Sligo County Council, Maloney and Matthews Animal Collections Ltd
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive which it lays down does not have direct effect. Where that article has not been transposed by a Member State, the national courts of that Member State are nonetheless required to interpret national law to the fullest extent possible, once the time limit for transposing that article has expired, in such a way that persons should not be prevented from seeking, or pursuing a claim for, a review by the courts, which falls within the scope of that article, by reason of the financial burden that might arise as a result.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State’s courts are under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive, when deciding on the allocation of costs in judicial proceedings which were ongoing as at the date on which the time limit for transposing the requirement, laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 10a, that certain judicial proceedings in environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive expired, irrespective of the date on which those costs were incurred during the proceedings concerned.
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  The fifth paragraph of Article 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the national court called upon to rule on the amount of costs is under an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with that directive, in so far as the force of res judicata attaching to the decision as to how the costs are to be borne, which has become final, does not preclude this, which it is for the national court to determine.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 178, 6.6.2017.