CELEX: 62015CA0645
Language: en
Date: 2016-11-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-645/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Project subject to assessment — Annex I, point 7 — European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) — Widening of a road with four lanes over a length of less than 10 km)

30.1.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 30/13
            
         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-645/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Project subject to assessment - Annex I, point 7 - European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) - Widening of a road with four lanes over a length of less than 10 km))
   (2017/C 030/14)
   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
   
      Joined party: Stadt Nürnberg
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Point 7(c) of Annex I to 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 cannot be interpreted to the effect that it covers a road development project which, whilst it concerns, as in the case before the referring court, a stretch of road that is under 10 km in length, consists in the widening or development of an existing road with four or more lanes.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that ‘express roads’ for the purposes of that provision are roads whose technical characteristics are those set out in the definition in point II.3 of Annex II to the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR), signed in Geneva on 15 November 1975, even if those roads do not form part of the network of main international traffic arteries or are located in urban areas.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The concept of ‘construction’ for the purposes of point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as referring to the carrying-out of works not previously existing or to the physical alteration of existing installations. In order to determine whether such an alteration may be regarded as equivalent, because of its scale and the manner in which it is carried out, to such construction, the referring court must take account of all the characteristics of the work concerned and not only of its length or of the fact that its initial route is retained.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.